/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230216.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, February 16, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 35
Headlines
9W HALO: Smith Wins Bid to Amend Complaint
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Carter Sues Over Camera Products' False Ads
ATERIAN INC: Court Sets March 17 Settlement Hearing on Class Action
BED BATH: Anderson Balks at Unpaid Wages, Illegal Background Check
BEIJING-MATSUSHITA: Court Sets Feb 24 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline
BIAGGI'S RISTORANTE: Hartley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Rzasa Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Conn.
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Residents Seek Cert. in Wildfire Class Suit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Louisiana Pension Class Suit
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Schreiber Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
CERENCE INC: Seeks Dismissal of MFFPORT Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: $32.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 11
CVS HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Class Suit
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: $1BB Class Settlement to be Heard on April 19
DIGITAL TURBINE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Shareholder Suit
ENGLEWOOD, NJ: Faces Stennett Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
EZRICARE LLC: Mosley Sues Over Deceptive Artificial Tear Products
FLOSPORTS INC: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Billing Practices
GEICO CORP: Judge Denied Motion to Dismiss COVID Insurance Suit
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 7
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. Ga.
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Xu Must File Class Certification Bid by Feb. 17
HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Touissant Class Suit
HANESBRANDS INC: Court Dismisses Second Roman Class Suit
HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
IHEARTMEDIA INC: Faces Suit Over Disclosing Subscribers' Info to FB
IHEARTMEDIA INC: Faces Suit Over Use of Facebook Tracking Pixel
INVIVYD INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3
ISM VUZEM: Maslic Seeks to Certify Class Action
JACK SKEEN: Court Stays Discovery in Reule Class Action
JOHNSON HEALTH: Faces Cain Suit Over Defective Treadmills
KINDER MORGAN: Continues to Defend Pedersen Class Suit in Texas
L'OCCITANE INC: Reyes Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
LAWRENCE O'TOOLE: Street, et al., Seek Initial OK of Settlememt
LYFT INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for June 22
MAIN LINE HEALTH: Smart Privacy Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Faszczewski v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Jobe v. Community Medical
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Arthur v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Atwood v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Bedell v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Mortensen v. Blackbaud
MDL 3009: Byrd Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
MDL 3044: Faces Danzig Suit Over Defective GXL Hip Liners
MDL 3044: Kulhan Sues Over Defective GXL Hip Liners
MERCEDES-BENZ: Appears in UK Court Over Illegal Emissions Tests
MYLAN NV: KPH Healthcare Files Interlocutory Appeal
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Former Players File Suit Against Commissioner
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ticket Case Certified as Antitrust Class Action
NEMOURS FOUNDATION: Cannarozzo Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Class Suit Over Derailment, Chemical Spill
NV MAINTENANCE: Ramirez Sues Over Janitorial Workers' Unpaid Wages
PIAZZA ROMANA: Faces Castellano Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
RED RACKS: Miller FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
ROMAN HEALTH: Siegfried Wiretapping Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Class Action Claims Products Falsely Advertised
SACRAMENTO, CA: Disabled Sues Over Homeless Camps on Sidewalks
SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: White Sues Over Mislabeled Frozen Apple Pies
SENDAYCO LLC: Klar Sues Over Deceptive Pure Body Naturals Products
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Students' Info, Smith Alleges
TEXAS: Faces Robertson Suit Over Prisoners' Confinement Conditions
UNDER ARMOUR: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Confirmed
UNITED OF OMAHA: Extension of Class Cert Hearing Dates Sought
UNITED STATES: Appeals Orders in Afghan and Iraqi Suit to D.C. Cir.
UNITED STATES: Court Allows Police Impersonation Suit to Proceed
UNIV. OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Favell Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
VANDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Gordon Securities Class Suit Dismissed
*********
9W HALO: Smith Wins Bid to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH C. SMITH, v. 9W
HALO WESTERN OPCO L.P., Case No. 4:20-cv-01968-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order granting leave to
amend complaint.
-- The Plaintiff shall file his proposed amended complaint as
a stand-alone document immediately.
-- The court vacates the briefing schedule for the plaintiff's
motion for class certification until the pleadings are
settled and it is established that the additional newly
added defendants are indeed proper.
9w Halo is in the Linen Supply business.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YvCXyL at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LISA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and other
individuals similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2022CH12303, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on February 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-00685 to the proceeding.
On behalf of herself and a putative class, Plaintiff Anderson
asserted causes of action under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for alleged unpaid
wages arising from time spent passing through required "COVID-19
screenings" before starting shifts at an Amazon warehouse.
Amazon.com Services, LLC is an American multinational technology
company.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq.
Kevin F. Gaffney, Esq.
Alexandra Belzley, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
110 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 324-1000
Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
E-mail: sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com
kevin.gaffney@morganlewis.com
alexandra.belzley@morganlewis.com
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Carter Sues Over Camera Products' False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00534-NC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law,
and the California Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's packaging of its camera
products emphasizes the inclusion of seven days of free cloud
storage for camera video recordings. He says that the Defendant
highlights this feature in multiple prominent positions on its
boxes. The products' packaging stated the 7-Day Free Cloud Storage
feature was "free" and would be provided "without a contract or a
monthly fee."
According to the complaint, neither the products' packaging nor
Defendant's marketing and advertisements included any statements
informing consumers that they would only have access to 7-Day Free
Cloud Storage for a limited time or that this feature would be
"reduced" or rendered "unavailable" after their purchase. Rather,
the packaging stated that the products "include rolling 7-Day cloud
recording," "without a contract or a monthly fee," and Defendant's
website further stated the feature would "never expire."
The Defendant's misleading statements and/or omissions caused
reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, to believe that the 7-Day
Free Cloud Storage would "never expire" or, alternatively, would
last for the life of the product. The Defendant's misleading
statements and material omissions also caused reasonable consumers
to (a) pay more for the products than they otherwise would have
paid, or (b) purchase a product they otherwise would not have
purchased, says the suit.
Arlo Technologies, Inc. is an American company that makes wireless
surveillance cameras.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicolle Brito, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Alexander C. Cohen, Esq.
Anny Martin, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: nbrito@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
acohen@rgrdlaw.com
amartin@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Krista K. Freier, Esq.
Develyn J. Mistriotti, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rpeterson@locklaw.com
kfreier@locklaw.com
djmistriotti@locklaw.com
ATERIAN INC: Court Sets March 17 Settlement Hearing on Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aterian, Inc. (the "Company") filed a Current Report on Form 8-K to
provide an update on the proposed settlement of the previously
disclosed shareholder derivative action, captioned Zhang v.
Aterian, Inc., et al.
On October 21 and 25, 2021, and November 10, 2021, three
shareholder derivative actions were filed on behalf of Aterian by
Shaoxuan Zhang, Michael Sheller, and Tyler Magnus (the
"Plaintiffs") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (the "Court"). These actions, naming current and former
directors and officers of the Company as defendants, and Aterian as
a nominal defendant, asserted that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and violated federal securities
laws, among other claims. (These actions were predicated on
substantively the same factual allegations made in the previously
disclosed putative securities action consolidated under the caption
Tate v. Aterian, Inc., et. al., 21-cv-04323-VM (the "Securities
Action").) By Order dated November 16, 2021, the three cases were
consolidated into a single action docketed under the Zhang case
number (the "Derivative Action").
All defendants vehemently deny and continue to deny each of the
claims and allegations of wrongdoing made in the Derivative Action
(and in the Securities Action).
As previously disclosed, on September 12, 2022, the Court entered a
final judgment approving a settlement in the Securities Action and,
on December 12, 2022, the parties reached an agreement and entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation")
to resolve the Derivative Action. Under the Stipulation, the
Company agreed to adopt certain corporate governance reforms, the
terms of which are outlined in Exhibit A to the Stipulation, and a
payment of the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of
$250,000. The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved by the
Court on December 29, 2022, and a hearing to determine whether the
Court should give final approval to the settlement has been
scheduled for March 17, 2023, at 11:00 a.m.
As ordered by the Court, the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement and all exhibits thereto, as well as the Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Action,
are attached as Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 to this Current Report on
Form 8-K. Additionally, the Stipulation and all exhibits are also
available on the Company's Investor Relations website at
https://ir.aterian.io/.
Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
A full copy of the notice is available at:
https://ir.aterian.io/static-files/6ca235fa-3361-4049-8adb-8d22fe765fdc
BED BATH: Anderson Balks at Unpaid Wages, Illegal Background Check
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL ANDERSON, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. BED BATH & BEYOND
INC., a New York corporation; BED BATH & BEYOND OF CALIFORNIA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a Delaware limited liability company;
LIBERTY PROCUREMENT CO. INC., a New York corporation; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV02428 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 3, 2023) is a representative action filed by
the Plaintiff, on behalf of all aggrieved employees and the State
of California against Defendants, pursuant to California's Private
Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et. seq., to recover
civil penalties for Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to keep accurate
records, failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages; refusal to pay wages due and payable
and/or the denial of the validity of any claim to wages due;
failure to reimburse business-related expenses; failure to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements; failure to provide suitable
resting facilities; failure to provide sick leave pay; untimely
payment of final wages; unlawful inquiries into salary history; and
unlawful background checks.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee. She worked for the Defendants as a cashier, stocker,
and/or other similar titles at one of retail stores located in
Valencia, California from August 2017 through December 11, 2021.
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an American chain of domestic merchandise
retail stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
BEIJING-MATSUSHITA: Court Sets Feb 24 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A notice has been issued regarding a class action involving Cathode
Ray Tubes (CRT) purchasers between March 1995 and November 2007.
Defendants include Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., et
al.
The Notice is as follows:
If You Bought A Cathode Ray Tube Product, A Class Action Ruling May
Affect You.
Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Products include Cathode Ray Tubes and
finished products that contain a Cathode Ray Tube such as
Televisions and Computer Monitors.
Important Date
Deadline to Request Exclusion
from Litigated Class --- February 24, 2023
A Federal Court authorized this Notice.
This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
* A class action lawsuit that includes direct purchasers of CRT
Products is currently pending.
* Plaintiffs claim that Defendants (listed below) and
Co-Conspirators engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the prices of Cathode Ray Tubes. Plaintiffs
further claim that direct purchasers of televisions and monitors
that contain a cathode ray tube from the Defendants may recover for
the effect that the cathode ray tube conspiracy had on the prices
of televisions and monitors. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of
the unlawful conspiracy involving cathode ray tubes, they and other
direct purchasers paid more for CRT Products than they would have
paid absent the conspiracy. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims.
* On August 1, 2022, the District Court certified a direct
purchaser plaintiff class. A copy of the Order granting class
certification is available on the class website at
www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com . The class consists
of "All persons and entities who, between March 1, 1995 and
November 25, 2007, directly purchased a CRT Product in the United
States from any Defendant or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof,
or any co-conspirator or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof.
Excluded from the class are defendants, their parent companies,
subsidiaries or affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental
entities, and any judges or justices assigned to hear any aspect of
this action."
* Your legal rights will be affected whether you act or don't act.
This Notice includes information on the certified class and the
continuing lawsuit. Please read the entire Notice carefully.
* You may exclude yourself from the class by submitting a request
for exclusion postmarked by February 24, 2023.
Basic Information
1. Why did I get this Notice?
You or your company may have directly purchased Cathode Ray Tubes
(CRTs) or certain products containing those tubes between March 1,
1995 and November 25, 2007. A direct purchaser is a person or
business who bought a CRT, or a television or computer monitor
containing a CRT directly from one or more of the Defendants,
Co-Conspirators, affiliates, or subsidiaries themselves, as opposed
to an intermediary (such as a retail store). You have the right to
know about the litigation and about your legal rights and options
before you decide whether to request exclusion from the Litigated
Class.
This Notice explains the litigation and your legal rights.
The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, and the case is called In
re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1917. The
people who sued are called Plaintiffs and the companies they sued
are called Defendants.
2. Who are the Defendant and Co-Conspirator companies?
The Defendants and alleged Co-Conspirators are: Beijing-Matsushita
Color CRT Company, Ltd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn.
Bhd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd.; Daewoo Electronics Corporation
(f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd.); Daewoo International
Corporation; Daewoo-Orion Societe Anonyme; Hitachi America, Ltd.;
Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic
Devices (USA), Inc.; Hitachi Ltd.; Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd.;
Irico Group Corporation; Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
(n/k/a Koninklijke Philips N.V.); LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co.,
Ltd.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; LP Displays
International, Ltd.; Matsushita Electronic Corporation (Malaysia)
Sdn. Bhd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric US,
Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.);
Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. (f/k/a
Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi
Consumer Electronics America, Inc.)); MT Picture Display Co., Ltd.
(f/k/a Matsushita Toshiba Picture Display Co., Ltd.); Orion
Electric Co.; Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co., Ltd.); Panasonic Corporation of North America;
Philips Consumer Electronics Co.; Philips da Amazonia Industria
Electronica Ltda. (n/k/a Philips do Brasil, Ltda.); Philips
Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd. (n/k/a Philips Taiwan
Limited); Philips Electronics Industries Ltd.; Philips Electronics
North America Corporation; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.;
Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.; Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.; Samsung
SDI Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Samsung Display Device Company); Samsung SDI
Mexico S.A. de C.V.; Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.; Shenzhen SEG
Hitachi Color Display Devices, Ltd.; Technicolor SA (f/k/a Thomson
SA); Technicolor USA, Inc. (f/k/a Thomson Consumer Electronics,
Inc.); Technologies Displays Americas LLC (f/k/a Thomson Displays
Americas LLC); Thai CRT Company, Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co.,
Ltd.; Toshiba America Consumer Products LLC; Toshiba America
Consumer Products, Inc.; Toshiba America Electronic Components,
Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America,
Inc.; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba Display Devices (Thailand)
Company, Ltd.; and Videocon Industries, Ltd.
3. Who are the affiliates and subsidiaries mentioned in the class
definition?
The "affiliates and subsidiaries" are: Chunghwa Picture Tubes
Fuzhou; Chunghwa Picture Tubes Taiwan; Daewoo Electronics America,
Inc.; Hitachi Electronic Display (USA); Hitachi High-Technologies
America, Inc. (f/k/a Nissei Sangyo America, Ltd.); Hitachi
High-Technologies Corporation (f/k/a Nissei Sangyo Co., Ltd.);
Irico Group New Energy Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Irico Group Electronics
Co., Ltd.); LG Electronics Service Europe Netherlands B.V.; LG
Electronics Wales Ltd.; LG Philips Displays; LG.Philips Displays
Brasil Ltda.; LG.Philips Displays Holding B.V.; LG.Philips Displays
International Ltd.; LG.Philips Displays Korea Co. Ltd.; LG.Philips
Displays Mexico SA de CV; LG.Philips Displays USA Inc.; MELCO
Display Devices Mexico, S.A. de C.V.; Mitsubishi Display Devices
America, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric Sales America, Inc.; Mitsubishi
Electric US Holdings, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc.;
Mitsubishi Electronics Industries Canada, Inc.; MT Picture Display
Corporation of America (New York); MT Picture Display Corporation
of America (Ohio); NEC-Mitsubishi Electric Visual Systems
Corporation; NEC-Mitsubishi Electronics Display of America, Inc.;
NM Visual Systems de Mexico S. A. de C.V.; Orion Electric
Components, Co., Ltd.; Orion Engineering & Service, Inc.; Orion
Mexicana, SA de CV; P.T. Tosummit Electronic Devices Indonesia;
Panasonic AVC Networks America; Panasonic Sikoku Electronics
Corporation of America; PCB Integrated Manufacturing System, S.A.
de C.V.; Philips Holding USA Inc.; PT.MT Picture Display Indonesia;
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI (Hong Kong), Ltd.;
Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. (Korea); Samsung
SDI Germany GmbH; Samsung SDI Hungary Ltd.; Samtel Color, Ltd.;
Tatung Company of America, Inc.; TCL International Holdings Ltd.;
TCL Thomson Electronics Corporation; Technologies Displays
Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. (f/k/a Thomson Displays Mexicana, S.A. de
C.V.); Tianjin Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.; TTE Technology, Inc.; and
Zenith Electronics Corporation (a/k/a Zenith Electronics LLC).
4. What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and Co-Conspirators conspired
to raise and fix the prices of CRTs and the CRTs contained in
certain finished products for over ten years, resulting in
overcharges to direct purchasers of those CRTs and certain finished
products containing CRTs. The complaint describes how the
Defendants and Co-Conspirators allegedly violated the U.S.
antitrust laws by establishing a global cartel that set
artificially high prices for, and restricted the supply of CRTs and
the televisions and monitors that contained them. Defendants deny
Plaintiffs' allegations. The Court has not decided who is right.
5. What is a Cathode Ray Tube Product?
For the purposes of the class definition, Cathode Ray Tube Products
(or "CRT Product") means Cathode Ray Tubes of any type (e.g., color
display tubes and color picture tubes) and finished products which
contain Cathode Ray Tubes, such as Televisions and Computer
Monitors
6. What is a class action?
In a class action, one or more people, called class
representatives, sue on behalf of people who have similar claims.
All these people are members of the class, except for those who
exclude themselves from the class. If the Plaintiffs obtain money
or benefits as a result of a trial or future settlement, you will
be notified about those settlements at that time. Important
information about the case will be posted on the website,
www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com as it becomes
available. Please check the website to be kept informed about any
future developments.
THE LITIGATED CLASS
7. How do I know if I'm part of the Litigated Class?
As a result of a motion filed by the Plaintiffs, on August 1, 2022,
the District Court certified a class of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
(the "Litigated Class"). The Litigated Class includes:
All persons and entities who, between March 1, 1995 and November
25, 2007, directly purchased a CRT Product in the United States
from any Defendant or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any
Co-Conspirator or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof. Excluded
from the class are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries
or affiliates, any Co-Conspirators, all governmental entities, and
any judges or justices assigned to hear any aspect of this action.
8. What are my rights in the Litigated Class and how do I exclude
myself?
Remain in the Litigated Class: If you wish to remain a member of
the Litigated Class, you do not need to take any action at this
time.
If you remain a class member, you will be bound by the District
Court's rulings in the lawsuit, including any final judgment.
Get out of the Litigated Class: If you wish to keep your rights to
individually sue the Defendants about the claims in this case, you
must exclude yourself from the Litigated Class. You will not get
any money from any future judgment awarded to the class if you
exclude yourself from the Litigated Class.
To exclude yourself from the Litigated Class, you must send a
letter that includes the following:
* Your name, address and telephone number;
* A statement stating that you want to be excluded
from In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 1917, Litigated Class; and
* Your signature.
You must mail your exclusion request, postmarked no later than
February 24, 2023, to:
CRT Direct Class Action
P.O. Box 301130
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1130
9. What am I giving up to stay in the Litigated Class?
Unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you can't
sue the Defendants, or be part of any other lawsuit against these
Defendants about the legal issues in this case. It also means that
all of the decisions by the Court (including any future class
judgment) will bind you.
10. Who are the Class Representatives?
The Class Representatives are: Arch Electronics, Inc.; Crago, d/b/a
Dash Computers, Inc.; Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc.;
Nathan Muchnick, Inc.; Princeton Display Technologies, Inc.; Radio
& TV Equipment, Inc.; Studio Spectrum, Inc.; and Wettstein and
Sons, Inc., d/b/a Wettstein's.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
11. Do I have a lawyer in the case?
Yes. The Court has appointed the law firm of Saveri & Saveri, Inc.
to represent you as Lead Counsel. You do not have to pay Lead
Counsel. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, and have
that lawyer appear in court for you in this case, you may hire one
at your own expense.
GETTING MORE INFORMATION
12. How do I get more information?
This Notice summarizes the lawsuit. You can get more information
about the lawsuit (including relevant case documents)
at www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com, by calling
1-877-224-3063, or writing to CRT Direct Class Action, P.O. Box
301130, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1130. Please do not contact the Court
about this case.
Dated: January 10, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
BIAGGI'S RISTORANTE: Hartley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH HARTLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIAGGI'S RISTORANTE ITALIANO, LLC and MAXBY
HOSPITALITY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00226-JZ (N.D. Ohio,
Feb. 6, 2023) challenges policies and practices of Defendants that
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges the failure of the Defendants to pay her and
the putative collective members the minimum hourly wages to which
they are entitled. She added that the Defendants compensated her
and the putative collective members at the tipped minimum wage rate
rather than at the full hourly minimum wage rate as required by the
FLSA.
Representative Plaintiff was employed as a server at Defendants'
Perrysburg, Ohio location within the last three years.
Biaggi's Ristorante Italiano, LLC and Maxby Hospitality LLC jointly
own and operate restaurants in multiple states under the trade name
Biaggi's Ristorante Italiano.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Rzasa Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Conn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KRISTEN RZASA, for herself and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. BJ'S RESTAURANTS, INC., and BJ'S
RESTAURANT OPERATIONS COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV23-
6164483-S, was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, to the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut on February 3,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Connecticut assigned Case
No. 3:23-cv-00140 to the proceeding.
The suit arises from the Defendants' illegal practices wherein they
underpaid Plaintiff and all Connecticut servers and bartenders
during the period of the claim in violation of the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act.
BJ'S Restaurants, Inc. is an American restaurant chain,
headquartered in Huntington Beach, California.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth McKenna, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Century Tower
265 Church Street, Suite 300
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 974-8700
Facsimile: (203) 974-8799
E-mail: emckenna@littler.com
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Residents Seek Cert. in Wildfire Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A weeklong hearing is underway in B.C. Supreme Court where lawyers
are trying to get a class-action lawsuit certified for Lytton
residents impacted by 2021's devastating wildfire.
Lawyers representing lead plaintiffs Christopher O'Connor and
Jordan Spinks argued in court filings that the 2021 blaze that
destroyed much of the Village of Lytton and the Lytton First Nation
reserve was sparked by trains passing through the village.
Both Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railway are
named defendants, alongside a railway compliance company, five
unnamed corporations, one John Doe and one Jane Doe.
"Through this suit, victims seek to hold the defendants accountable
for their conduct and to recover their losses," reads a notice of
civil claim.
The Lytton Creek Wildfire started in the late afternoon of June 30,
2021. It quickly tore through the village and killed two
residents.
The fire burned out of control for more than two months.
O'Connor is a resident of Lytton. His house was destroyed by the
blaze and he is now living in an Airbnb in Merritt.
Spinks is a resident of a reserve governed by LFN. He worked as a
care aide at Spintlum Lodge prior to the fire. The facility has not
reopened following the blaze and he lost his job.
Lawyer Anthony Vecchio, who is representing the two men, said the
goal is accountability.
"At the heart of it, we're trying to get liability," he told
Castanet.
"We're saying the trains, in effect, were the reason the fire
started. We have eyewitnesses, we have experts, we know where it
started. We know trains spark fires."
On Oct. 14, 2021, the Transportation Safety Board said it found no
evidence that rail operations caused the Lytton fire.
The certification hearing is slated to conclude. If the class
action is certified, it would proceed to settlement or trial. If it
is not certified, individual plaintiffs would be on their own to
seek compensation. [GN]
CARDINAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Louisiana Pension Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension &
Relief Fund class suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.
In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed
a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and
certain current and former officers and employees in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common shares between
March 2015 and May 2018.
In June 2020, the court appointed 1199 SEIU Health Care Employees
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed in September 2020.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
misrepresentations and omissions related to the acquisition and
integration of the Cordis business and inventory
and supply chain problems within the Cordis business, and seeks to
recover unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged
misstatements and omissions.
The complaint also alleges that one of the individual defendants
violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act because he sold shares of
Cardinal Health stock during the time period.
In September 2021, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.
In September 2022, the court entered an order staying the case
while the parties participate in mediation.
The Company continues to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.
Cardinal Health, Inc. is a company that provides healthcare
services and products in Ohio.
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Schreiber Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RIFKA SCHREIBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC,, Case No. 503293/2023
(N.Y. Sup., Jan. 31, 2023) alleges that the Defendant's debt
collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff
violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, including 15 U.S.C. sections 1692e and 1692f.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the
Defendant individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, pursuant to Article 9 of the New York Laws of
Civil Practice Law & Rules.
Some time prior to April 29, 2022, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred
an obligation to non-party original creditor Citibank, N.A. (Citi).
SPV assigned the account to Cavalry to collect the alleged debt.
On April 29, 2022, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a corrective
collection letter. Specifically, the Letter states as follows:
1. "if you make a payment on a debt, admit to owing a debt,
or promise to pay a debt, the time period in which the debt
is enforceable in court may start again;"
2. "However, your creditor or debt collector believes that
restarting the time period on this debt is prohibited by
law,
and whether or not you acknowledge, promise to pay, or make
a
payment on this debt, your creditor or debt collector will
not sue you to collect this debt;" and
3. "If you waive the statute of limitations on a debt, the time
period in which the debt is enforceable in court may start
again."
In addition to being inherently confusing, the Letter fails to
explain whether the debt is subject to sale to a new creditor
and/or assignment to a new debt collector that can sue if the
Plaintiff acknowledges, promises to pay or makes a payment on the
debt.
The Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair representations
with respect to its collection efforts were material
misrepresentations that affected and frustrated the Plaintiff's
ability to intelligently respond to the Defendant's collection
efforts because the Plaintiff could not adequately respond to the
Defendant's demand for payment of this debt. The Plaintiff was
confused and misled to her detriment by the statements in the
Letter, and relied on the contents of the Letter to her detriment,
the Plaintiff contends.
As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair
debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been allegedly
damaged.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Kings.
Cavalry Portfolio is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Yusko, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com
CERENCE INC: Seeks Dismissal of MFFPORT Suit
--------------------------------------------
Cerence Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 8, 2023, that the Company filed a
motion to dismiss a securities action in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On February 25, 2022, a purported shareholder class action
captioned as City Of Miami Fire Fighters' And Police Officers'
Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc. et al. (the "Securities Action")
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and two of its former officers as
defendants.
Following the court's selection of a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022.
The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased
the Company's common stock between November 16, 2020 and February
4, 2022.
The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact regarding the Company's operations,
financial performance and prospects were made in the Company's
public disclosures during the period from November 16, 2020 to
February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.
The Company intends to defend the claims vigorously.
It has filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed.
Cerence Inc. is a voice-assistant solutions provider for
automobiles.
CREDIT SUISSE: $32.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Credit Suisse Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE
AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, THOMAS
GOTTSTEIN, DAVID R. MATHERS, LARA
J. WARNER AND BRIAN CHIN,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-03385-NRB
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AMERICAN
DEPOSITORY RECEIPTS ("ADRs") OF CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG ("CREDIT
SUISSE") DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 29, 2020 THROUGH MARCH 31,
2021, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified
for the purpose of settlement only as a class action on behalf of
the Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded
from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the
"Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Litigation has
reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation for $32,500,000.00,
that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Litigation.
A hearing will be held on May 11, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, United States District Judge, at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 21A, New York, NY 10007-1312, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in
the Litigation for the principal amount of $32,500,000.00, plus
interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing
the Litigation with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation of Settlement (the
"Stipulation") dated September 12, 2022 (and in the Notice) should
be granted; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the
application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses and an award to Lead Plaintiff in connection with its
representation of the Class should be approved.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CREDIT SUISSE ADRs DURING
THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 29, 2020 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2021, INCLUSIVE,
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
If you have not received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof
of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to
Credit Suisse Securities Settlement, Claims Administrator, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 6159, Novato, CA 94948-6159, or at
www.CreditSuisseSecuritiesSettlement.com
If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail (postmarked no later than April 6, 2023) or
electronically (no later than April 6, 2023), establishing that you
are entitled to a recovery. If you are a Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the settlement, but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Litigation.
If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion, in writing and in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, to Credit
Suisse Securities Settlement, EXCLUSIONS, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC,
P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur, CA 94977-5100, postmarked no later than
April 20, 2023. All Class Members who do not timely and validly
request exclusion from the Class in response to the Notice will be
bound, to the extent approved by the Court, by the proposed
settlement and any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to
the Stipulation.
Any objection to the settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee
and expense application must be in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice and received by each of the following
recipients no later than April 20, 2023:
CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
JASON C. DAVIS
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Defendants' Counsel:
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
HERBERT S. WASHER
EDWARD MOSS
ADAM S. MINTZ
32 Old Slip
New York, NY 10005
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, CREDIT SUISSE
OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any
questions about the settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the
address listed above or by an email to Lead Counsel at
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com. Copies of certain pleadings and other
documents filed in the Litigation can also be found at
www.CreditSuisseSecuritiesSettlement.com.
DATED: December 23, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CVS HEALTH: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the consolidated ERISA-related
class suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.
In August and September 2020, two class actions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against CVS
Health, Aetna, and several current and former executives, directors
and/or members of Aetna’s Compensation and Talent Management
Committee: Radcliffe v. Aetna Inc., et al. and Flaim v. Aetna Inc.,
et al. The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of
action premised on allegations that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions relating to
participants in the Aetna 401(k) Plan's investment in company stock
between December 3, 2017 and February 20, 2019, claiming losses
related to the performance of the Company's LTC business unit.
The district court consolidated the actions, and in October 2021,
dismissed the consolidated action without prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which the
Company moved to dismiss.
In October 2022, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Second Circuit.
The Company also received a related document request pursuant to
ERISA § 104(b), to which the Company has responded.
The Company and its current and former officers and directors are
defending themselves against these claims.
Flexsteel Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries is a manufacturer,
importer, and marketer of furniture products based in Iowa.
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: $1BB Class Settlement to be Heard on April 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.
CLASS V STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION
Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS
ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING,
AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO:
All record holders and beneficial owners of Dell Technologies Inc.
("Dell") Class V common stock (NYSE: "DVMT") whose shares of Class
V common stock were converted on December 28, 2018 (the "Class
Shares") in their capacities as holders of Class Shares, together
with their heirs, assigns, transferees, and successors-in-interest,
in each case in their capacity as holders or beneficial owners of
Class Shares (the "Class").1
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that lead plaintiff Steamfitters Local 449
Pension Plan ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the Class, has
reached a proposed settlement with defendants Michael Dell, David
Dorman, Egon Durban, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, William Green, Simon
Patterson, Silver Lake Group LLC, Silver Lake Partners III, L.P.,
Silver Lake Technology Investors III, L.P., Silver Lake Partners
IV, L.P., Silver Lake Technology Investors IV, L.P., SLP Denali
Co-Invest, L.P. (the "Defendants") and Dell for $1,000,000,000 in
cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and
Release between Plaintiff, Defendants and Dell, dated December 22,
2022 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at
www.DellClassVStockholderLitigation.com. If approved by the Court,
the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action as against
Defendants.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on April 19, 2023
at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable J. Travis Laster, Vice
Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by
Zoom (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i)
determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (ii)
determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice as against Defendants; (iii) determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund
is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (iv)
determine whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, including
Plaintiff's application for an incentive award, should be approved;
(v) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed
Plan of Allocation, and/or to the application by Plaintiff's
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, including
Plaintiff's application for an incentive award; and (vi) consider
any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in
connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at
the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.DellClassVStockholderLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at Dell Class V Stockholder Litigation,
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170900, Milwaukee, WI 53217. A copy
of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.DellClassVStockholderLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of
Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" consist of Class Members who
held shares of Dell Class V common stock at the closing of the
Transaction on December 28, 2018 (the "Closing") and therefore
received or were entitled to receive the Transaction Consideration
for their Eligible Shares. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of
Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive
a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the
product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible
Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement,
which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net
Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares. Eligible
Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a
payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award
attorneys' fees and expenses, including Plaintiff's application for
an incentive award, in connection with the Settlement must be filed
with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and Defendants'
Counsel such that they are received no later than April 4, 2023, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or
Plaintiff's Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
Dell Class V Stockholder Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170900
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Ned Weinberger
Labaton Sucharow LLP
222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
1-888-219-6877
settlementquestions@labaton.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE
1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency of
Stockholder Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.DellClassVStockholderLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms
used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this
Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the
Notice.
DIGITAL TURBINE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend consolidated shareholder class suits in the
Western District of Texas.
On June 6, 2022 and July 21, 2022, shareholders of the Company
filed class action complaints against the Company and certain of
its officers in the Western District of Texas related to Digital
Turbine, Inc.'s announcement in May 2022 that the Company would
restate some of its financial results.
The claims allege violations of certain federal securities laws. In
addition, in September and October of 2022, shareholders of the
Company filed derivative complaints against the Company and its
directors in the Western District of Texas, Delaware state courts,
and Texas state courts alleging breaches of fiduciary duties
relating to the allegations made in the class action complaints.
The federal derivative cases are consolidated, and the Texas
derivative case has been dismissed and re-filed in Delaware federal
court and the Delaware derivative cases are now consolidated, and
all such derivative cases are stayed under a court order, pending a
ruling on any motion to dismiss the federal class action that is
later filed.
The Company and individual defendants deny any allegations of
wrongdoing and plan to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in these complaints.
Digital Turbine Inc. is a software company that delivers products
to assist third parties in monetizing through the utilization of
mobile advertising. The Company completed its acquisitions of
AdColony Holdings AS and Fyber N.V. on April 29 and May 25, 2021,
respectively.[BN]
ENGLEWOOD, NJ: Faces Stennett Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RHAKEEM STENNETT, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
Black employees v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD; CITY OF ENGLEWOOD POLICE
DEPARTMENT; QUAL-LYNX; JOHN DOES (1-10); JANE DOES (1-10); XYZ
CORP, INC (1-10), Case No. BER-L-000569-23 (N.J. Super., Bergen
Cty., Jan. 31, 2023) seeks to remedy unlawful discrimination on the
basis of race under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and
seeks to remedy unlawful discrimination on the basis of
handicap/disability and failure to accommodate and failure to
engage in an interactive dialogue pursuant to the Workers'
Compensation Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the New Jersey Civil
Rights Act.
On January 4, 1999, the Plaintiff commenced employment with
Defendants City of Englewood and the EPD as a Patrol Officer in the
EPD. Despite the Plaintiff's favorable evaluations, throughout his
tenure of employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff has
repeatedly been passed over for placements/assignments in the
Detective Bureau, the Traffic Bureau, and/or the Juvenile Bureau,
whereas less senior, white employees have been placed/assigned to
the Detective, Traffic, and Juvenile Bureaus. The Defendants have
allegedly engaged in a deliberate and systematic pattern of
discrimination in not assigning officers to specific Bureaus; and,
rather, keep Black officers on patrol, says the Plaintiff.
On February 1, 2022, the Plaintiff, while responding to an
emergency medical call in his police vehicle, sustained injuries
when another vehicle drove through a red light and struck the
Plaintiff's police vehicle.
On April 6, 2022, the Plaintiff, in pain and frustrated with the
inability to get proper medical care for his work-related injuries,
sought the opinion of Dr. Jason Baynes. Of note, Dr. Baynes found
that "If the impingement does not resolve soon in the back and the
neck the nerve damage could become permanent as this patient is
already losing strength throughout his left arm."
On June 1, 2022, the Plaintiff had surgery on his neck. After
surgery, the Plaintiff continued to treat with Dr. Cassilly between
June 1, 2022 through November 14, 2022.
Throughout Plaintiff's treatment, he was treated less favorably
than his White co-workers who were injured on the job and allowed
to treat with their own choice of medical providers. As a direct
and proximate result of the above conduct, the Plaintiff suffered
and continues to suffer (or will suffer) economic damages;
diminishment of career opportunity; loss of self-esteem; disruption
of his career and family life; physical and mental pain; emotional
trauma and distress; pain and suffering; and other irreparable
harm, alleges the suit.
The Plaintiff is a Black individual who has an actual and/or
perceived disability, record of impairment or treated for a
disability/handicap and who has been employed by the Defendants
since January 4, 1999.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert A. Tandy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. TANDY, LLC
50 Tice Boulevard, Suite 250
Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677
Telephone: (201) 474-7103
EZRICARE LLC: Mosley Sues Over Deceptive Artificial Tear Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MOSLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EZRICARE LLC; EZRIRX LLC; DELSAM PHARMA LLC;
GLOBAL PHARMA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LTD., and ARU PHARMA INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00020-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky., Feb. 4, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment,
negligent misrepresentation/omission, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, strict product liability, and violation
of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.
This is a class action lawsuit by Plaintiff, and others similarly
situated consumers, who purchased EzriCare Artificial Tears and
Delsam Pharma Artificial Tears manufactured, imported, sold,
marketed, labeled, and distributed by Defendants. The Defendants
manufacture several over-the-counter pharmaceutical products,
including the named artificial tears, which contain a solution of
Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium 10 MG in 1 ml.
However, the Defendants' artificial tears are adulterated and
contaminated with "a rare, extensively drug-resistant strain of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria," asserts the complaint. The
presence of the Pseudomonas Aeruginosa bacteria in Defendants'
EzriCare and Delsam Pharma Artificial Tear products is due to
Defendants' violation of Current Good Manufacturing Processes (as
identified by the Food and Drug Administration), including "lack of
appropriate microbial testing, formulation issues and lack of
proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging," adds the
complaint.
These alleged violations, along with the presence of this rare and,
in some cases, deadly, bacteria pose a significant and severe
health risk to consumers, such as Plaintiff and the putative class,
who purchased and used Defendants' artificial tear products. The
Plaintiff and the putative class suffered economic damages due to
Defendants' misconduct and seek injunctive relief and restitution
for the full purchase price of the artificial tear products they
purchased.
EzriCare LLC markets, advertises, labels, distributes, and sells
the artificial tear products with principal place of business in
Lakewood, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David G. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LAW CENTER MASS TORTS DIVISION, P.S.C.
600 W. Main St., Suite 250
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 540-1221
Facsimile: (502) 540-1200
E-mail: david@davidbryantlaw.com
- and -
Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
BRYANT LAW CENTER MASS TORTS DIVISION, P.S.C.
601 Washington St., P.O. Box 1876
Paducah, KY 42003
Telephone: (270) 442-1422
Facsimile: (270) 443-8788
E-mail: Mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com
Emily.roark@bryantpsc.com
- and -
Bryan Aylstock, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS, & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com
- and -
Hannah Pfeifler, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS, & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: hpfeifler@awkolaw.com
- and -
Maury Goldstein, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS, & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: mgoldstein@awkolaw.com
- and -
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
FLOSPORTS INC: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Billing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
grapplinginsider.com reports that the Austin, Texas-based sports
streaming platform FloSports, which owns and operates FloGrappling,
has been sued over alleged unlawful billing practices.
Filed in November 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, the suit seeks damages on behalf of a
nationwide class of consumers who were charged for FloSports
subscriptions.
Allegations against FloSports
In general, the suit alleges that FloSports unlawfully misled
customers to believe they were signing up for a monthly
subscription only to be charged for a yearly subscription. The suit
further states that FloSports unilaterally charged consumers with
subscription renewals without their consent in violation of both
New York and federal laws.
The suit cites "over 900" complaints filed against FloSports on the
Better Business Bureau website, many of which allege that the
company engaged in misleading billing practices and failed to
respond to customer service inquiries about said billing
practices.
Additionally, the suit alleges that Flo's subscription enrollment
process is deceptive on its face, and the automatic renewal terms
are not conspicuously displayed, again in violation of state and
federal laws.
At this time, the lawsuit is in the very early stages of the legal
process. In order for the case to move forward as a class action,
the court must first certify the class of consumers that have
allegedly been damaged by FloSports' billing practices.
FloGrappling is one of many sport-specific streaming services that
exist under the FloSports banner. It is the exclusive provider of
all IBJJF events, as well as a number of submission grappling and
BJJ competitions, including FloGrappling's own promotion, Who's
Number One, and the 2022 ADCC World Championships.
Recently, FloGrappling announced it had signed top no-gi competitor
Gordon Ryan to a seven-figure, multi-match deal. That announcement
came shortly before news broke that the 2024 ADCC World
Championships would move off of the FloGrappling platform and onto
UFC Fight Pass. [GN]
GEICO CORP: Judge Denied Motion to Dismiss COVID Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a federal judge
rejected Geico's attempts to put the brakes on a class action
complaint accusing the insurer of offering insufficient recompense
during the early days of Covid-19.
At issue in the complaint is the company's Geico Giveback
promotion, through which the company applied a 15% premium
reduction on new and renewed auto insurance policies while
lockdown-style orders issued by Gov. JB Pritzker significantly
reduced many drivers' mileage and crashes related to driving across
the state. In July 2020, James and Roxanne Thomas sued Geico,
alleging the deduction was insignificant compared to its customers'
risk profiles, which they said constituted a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Attorney Antonio Romanucci and others from the firm of Romanucci &
Blandin, of Chicago, filed the class action lawsuit in Cook County
Circuit Court, and filed similar complaints on behalf of other
clients against others insurers, including American Family,
Allstate and Progressive. All the lawsuits said the actual miles
driven dropped as much as two-thirds compared to pre-pandemic
norms, so a 15% reduction or rebate was insufficient.
In an opinion filed Feb. 6, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman ruled on Geico's motion to dismiss the Thomases' October
2021 amended complaint, a response to her March 4, 2021, ruling on
their initial filing.
"The question presented to this court is a narrow one," Coleman
wrote, "whether the 'filed-rate' doctrine prevents the Court from
awarding plaintiffs damages."
Coleman said the doctrine applies to companies, like insurance
carriers and public utilities, that must file rates with
regulators. She explained rate regulation is a legislative branch
function, and that while that was "originally a federal common law
doctrine," many states have incorporated some version of the
concept, either through written law or judicial interpretation.
In Illinois, personal automobile insurance underwriters file rates
with the state Department of Insurance. However, she continued,
"The Illinois legislature has largely deregulated the private
automobile insurance market, and the Department apparently has no
authority to set, approve or disapprove these rates; it merely
publishes filed rates."
Geico said the legal requirement to file with a state regulatory
agency alone triggers exemption from the Thomases' complaint, but
the couple argued the department's lack of authority means the
doctrine isn't applicable. Coleman said the dispute has another
layer: Geico cited precedent from a 2022 U.S. Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals opinion, while the Thomases said a 2019 Illinois Fifth
District Appellate Court opinion controls.
Coleman noted the Illinois Supreme Court has not answered the
question of whether the filed rate doctrine applies to personal car
insurance, meaning the federal appeals panel's rulings hold sway.
But rather than the 2022 case, South Branch v. Commonwealth Edison,
she looked at a 2013 Seventh Circuit opinion, Cohen v. American
Security Insurance, which held the doctrine "protects public
utilities and other regulated entities from civil actions attacking
their rates if the rates must be filed with the governing
regulatory agency and the agency has the authority to set, approve
or disapprove them."
Coleman said the Cohen opinion didn't rest on the filed-rate
doctrine, but the panel raised the possibility it didn't apply to
that lawsuit's property insurance rate dispute. The Department of
Insurance's role hasn't changed since that context, with Coleman
adding reference to various Illinois Supreme Court writings
suggesting a decision over whether the doctrine applies is reliant
on an agency's role in rate approval.
The South Branch litigation, which stems from the bribery
investigation against former Illinois House Speaker Michael
Madigan, "concerned a public utility, which is regulated by the
Illinois Commerce Commission, a state agency with different
authorities and responsibilities than" the Department of Insurance,
Coleman wrote, adding "the underlying claim was under federal, not
state, law."
Coleman concluded by saying she would "not abdicate the
responsibility to assess" whether Geico's rates were unfair or
deceptive. [GN]
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Global
Payments, Inc. ("Global Payments" or the "Company") (NYSE: GPN).
The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Global
Payments securities between October 31, 2019 and October 18, 2022,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors are hereby
notified that they have until April 7, 2023, to move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
into a browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/global-payments-inc
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (a)
Active Network used deceptive and abusive acts and practices to
dupe its customers into enrolling in Active Network's discount
club; (b) since July 2011, Active Network, and by extension, Global
Payments, was aware of such unauthorized conduct and that it was
violating relevant regulations and laws aimed at protecting its
consumers; (c) since 2011, Global Payments failed to properly
monitor its subsidiary from engaging in such unlawful conduct,
detect and stop the misconduct, and identify and remediate harmed
consumers; (d) all the foregoing subjected the Company to a
foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny or
investigation; (e) Global Payments' revenues were in part the
product of Active Network's unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and (f) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Global Payments class-action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential
future recovery of the Global Payments class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------
bdtonline.com reports that Lowey Dannenberg P.C. has filed a
federal securities class action in the United States District Court
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of its client and all
similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Global Payments, Inc. ("Global Payments" or the
"Company") (NYSE: GPN) from October 31, 2019 to October 18, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action alleges violations
of the federal securities law under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than April 10, 2023. Any member of
the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff through
counsel of their choice.
If you have suffered a net loss from investment in Global Payments'
securities from October 31, 2019 and October 18, 2022, you may
obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability
to become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Andrea Farah at
afarah@lowey.com or Alesandra Greco at agreco@lowey.com or by
calling 914-733-7256. The class action is titled Shafer v. Global
Payments, Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00577 (N.D. Ga.).
The Complaint alleges that Global Payments and certain of its top
executives made false and misleading statements to the public
throughout the Class Period regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) Active Network used deceptive and abusive acts and practices to
dupe its customers into enrolling into Active Network's own
discount club; (b) since July 2011, Active Network, and by
extension, Global Payments, was aware of such unauthorized conduct
and that it was violating relevant regulations and laws aimed at
protecting its consumers; (c) since 2011, Global Payments failed to
properly monitor its subsidiary from engaging in such unlawful
conduct, detect and stop the misconduct, and identify and remediate
harmed consumers; (d) all the foregoing subjected the Company to a
foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny or
investigation; (e) Global Payments' revenues were in part the
product of Active Network's unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and (f) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. [GN]
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Xu Must File Class Certification Bid by Feb. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Xu v. Gridsum Holding Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03655-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Gregory H. Woods entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' January
26, 2023 request for an extension of time to file their motion for
class certification:
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for February 17, 2023
class certification is due
no later than:
-- The Defendants' opposition, April 21, 2023
if any, is due no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply, May 22, 2023
if any, is due no later than:
Gridsum is a leading provider of sophisticated data analysis
software for multinational and domestic enterprises and government
agencies in China.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xd2MlZ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 308-5888
Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Touissant Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hanesbrands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Touissant class suit in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
On October 13, 2022, another putative class action was filed
against HanesBrands Inc. alleging, among other things, negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
and unjust enrichment in connection with the ransomware incident.
The litigation is entitled, Toussaint v. HanesBrands,[sic] Inc. and
is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina.
The pending lawsuits seek, among other things, monetary and
injunctive relief.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter and believes the
case is without merit.
Hanesbrands Inc. is a marketer of everyday basic innerwear and
active wear apparel based in North Carolina.
HANESBRANDS INC: Court Dismisses Second Roman Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hanesbrands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2023, that the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed
with prejudice the second Roman class suit on January 23, 2023.
Plaintiff Roman also subsequently filed a second putative class
action with regard to the ransomware incident in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on January
16, 2023, entitled Roman v. Hanesbrands,[sic] Inc., which was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on January 20, 2023.
Hanesbrands Inc. is a marketer of everyday basic innerwear and
active wear apparel based in North Carolina.
HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Case
No. HUD-L-000069-23 was removed from the Superior Court of Hudson
County, NJ, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Feb. 2, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00589 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Harbor Freight Tools, commonly referred to as Harbor Freight --
https://www.harborfreight.com/ -- is a privately held tool and
equipment retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Sean J. Kirby, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 2400
New York, NY 10112
Phone: (212) 634-3023
Email: skirby@sheppardmullin.com
IHEARTMEDIA INC: Faces Suit Over Disclosing Subscribers' Info to FB
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA TALLEY, Individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. IHEARTMEDIA, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00215
(M.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2023) is a consumer digital privacy class
action complaint against the Defendant for violation of the federal
Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing to a third party, Meta
Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), data containing its digital
subscribers' personally identifiable information or Facebook ID and
the computer file containing video and its corresponding URL
viewed.
The Defendant allegedly shares the Personal Viewing Information --
i.e., digital subscribers' unique FID and Video Media viewed --
together as one data point to Facebook. Because the digital
subscriber's FID uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook user
account, Facebook -- or any other ordinary person -- can use it to
quickly and easily locate, access, and view digital subscribers'
corresponding Facebook profile, says the suit.
Accordingly, once a digital subscriber signs in and watches
iHeart.com Video Media, the digital subscriber is not provided with
any notification at the time that they watch the Video Media that
their Personal Viewing Information is being shared. The Defendant
also does not provide its digital subscribers with an opportunity,
in a clear and conspicuous manner, for them to withdraw on a
case-by-case basis from the disclosure of their Personal Viewing
Information or to withdraw from ongoing disclosures of their
Personal Viewing Information, at their election, the lawsuit
claims.
Similarly, the Defendant also fails to obtain digital subscribers'
written consent to collect their Personal Viewing Information "in a
form distinct and separate from any form setting forth other legal
or financial obligations of the consumer," as VPPA requires. Thus,
without obtaining consent from its digital subscribers, Defendant
profits from its unauthorized disclosure of its digital
subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook. Defendant
reaps these secret profits at the expense of its digital
subscribers' privacy and their statutory rights under VPPA, the
suit contends.
The Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiff's and hundreds of
thousands of other iHeart.com digital subscribers' statutorily
protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive personal data
to Facebook. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action
for legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to
Defendant's practices of intentionally disclosing its digital
subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing
violation of VPPA, the suit further alleges.
Ms. Talley began her digital subscription to iHeart.com around 2022
and continues to maintain the subscription to this day. She has had
a Facebook account from 2009 to the present.
Iheartmedia, Inc. develops, owns, and operates the iHeart.com
website, which includes a broad selection of video content posted
along with their stories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.*
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1 st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
edwine@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30 th Avenue
Aventura, FL 33180
E-mail: adam@edelsberglaw.com
scott@edelsberglaw.com
IHEARTMEDIA INC: Faces Suit Over Use of Facebook Tracking Pixel
---------------------------------------------------------------
radioinsight.com reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
in Florida alleging that iHeartMedia is violating the federal Video
Privacy Protection Act by sharing its digital subscribers' Facebook
ID and "computer file containing video and its corresponding URL
viewed" by them to Facebook and their parent Meta. The VPPA
prohibits "video tape service providers" from sharing data on
video-viewing habits without express consent. In this case, filed
in the Middle District of Florida by Gloria Talley, the suit states
that the details of content viewed and the subscriber's Facebook ID
on iHeart.com are transferred by to Facebook via its tracking
pixel. Similar lawsuits have been filed in the past few months
against AARP, People Magazine, NBCUniversal, and Hubbard Radio's
WTOP.com.
ClassAction.org states that the suit looks to represent anyone in
the United States with a digital subscription to an online website
or app owned by iHeartMedia, Inc. whose personal viewing
information was transmitted to Facebook.
In the suit against WTOP filed last fall, similar allegations were
filed by Toni Duplantis or Louisiana seeking $2500 in damages for
each member of the suite, plus punitive damages to be determined in
the trial along with prejudgment interest and legal costs. Hubbard
filed for the suit to be thrown out as neither the plaintiff nor
company are at home in Maryland where the suit was filed. Hubbard
also argued against the broad interpretation of the VPAA that this
and the other suits are taking as its use of video materials to
supplement their news content does not make it the equivalent of an
online video store. "To hold otherwise would mean that every
website with video content is in the business of renting video
tapes and can be sued under VPPA." [GN]
INVIVYD INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Invivyd, Inc. (the "Company") (NasdaqGM:
IVVD) f/k/a Adagio Therapeutics, Inc. ("Adagio") (NasdaqGM: ADGI),
if they purchased the Company's shares between November 29, 2021
and December 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders
have until April 3, 2023 to file lead plaintiff applications in the
securities class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgm-ivvd/, by calling
toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
ISM VUZEM: Maslic Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sasa Maslic, individually
and on behalf of putative class, Ivan Drzaic, Robert Hernaus,
Leopold Hubek, Leon Hudoldetnjak, Elvis Koscak, Tomica Panic,
Stjepan Papes, Zeljko Puljko, Darko Sincek, David Štante, Nedeljko
Zivani, and Gogo Rebic, v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o., ISM Vuzem USA, Inc.,
Vuzem USA, Inc., and HRID-MONT d.o.o., Ivan Vuzem, Robert Vuzem,
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-02556-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the case as class action under Rule 23(b)(3):
"All non-management individuals employed by ISM Vuzem,
d.o.o., who worked at the Tesla facility located in
Fremont, California, at any time from July 1, 12 2014,
through April 30, 2016;" and
2. appointing her counsel to represent the class.
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court order that notice of
this class action be issued to the Class Members.
The Plaintiff has brought the Eighth Cause of Action of the October
29, 2020 filed First Amended Complaint against the Defendants have
been sued under an alter ego theory of liability.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Vuzem.
The Class in this case consists of 177 non-exempt workers employed
by Vuzem in California from July 2014 through April 2016.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan 26,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lo9YOU
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William C. Dresser, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM C. DRESSER
14125 Capri Drive, Suite 4
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: (408) 279-7529
Facsimile: (408) 668-2990
JACK SKEEN: Court Stays Discovery in Reule Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE REULE, et al., v
JACK SKEEN, JR., et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00367-JDK (E.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to stay discovery and for a protective order.
-- The Court stays all discovery and discovery-related
deadlines in this case, including the deadlines provided by
Rules 26(a)(1)(C) and 26(f), until further order of the
Court.
-- Also before the Court is Defendants' motion for an
extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' pending motion
to certify a defendant class. Docket No. 32. In light of
the above stay, the Court grants Defendants' motion for an
extension. The Defendants need not respond to Plaintiffs'
pending motion to certify a defendant class until further
order of the Court.
-- Finally, the Court denies as moot Defendants' unopposed
motion for an extension of time to reply.
Here, because the Defendants assert sovereign immunity, discovery
-- and any discovery-related deadlines -- should be stayed until
the Court resolves the immunity claim.
The Plaintiffs argue against a stay because they claim Defendants
are not entitled to immunity. But a dispute over the doctrine's
applicability does not change the Court's duty to stay discovery.
The Plaintiffs in this case challenge the constitutionality of
Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which
governs "vexatious litigants." The Defendants are judicial and
executive officials employed by the State of Texas who allegedly
enforce Chapter 11. After Defendants invoked sovereign immunity in
their motions to dismiss, they moved to stay discovery pending
resolution of their immunity defense.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HBUNZW at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHNSON HEALTH: Faces Cain Suit Over Defective Treadmills
---------------------------------------------------------
EBONY CAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON HEALTH TECH NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00195 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for fraud by omission, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act,
breach of implied warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code, and
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.
The complaint arises from the Defendant's manufacture and sale of
its Horizon Fitness T101-05 treadmills, all of which suffer from an
identical defect in design. Specifically, the treadmills can
unexpectedly accelerate, change speed, or stop without user input,
posing an injury and fall hazard. Such a design defect is
extraordinarily dangerous and has rendered the products unsuitable
for their principal and intended purpose, the suit alleges.
Due to the dangerous nature of the defect, Defendant initiated a
recall of its Horizon Fitness T101-05 treadmills. However, the
recall is grossly inadequate, as it does not provide consumers,
like Plaintiff, with any monetary relief, and it fails to provide
direct notice to consumers, says the suit.
Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. manufactures fitness
equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
KINDER MORGAN: Continues to Defend Pedersen Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 8, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Pedersen class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
On February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants
Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action
lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA). The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR
Pipeline Company (ANR) in the late 1970s.
Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became
participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation
(Coastal), El Paso Corporation (El Paso) and the Company by virtue
of our acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and its assumption of certain
of El Paso's pension plan obligations. The lawsuit, which was filed
initially in federal court in Michigan and then transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil
Action No. 4:21-3590), alleges that the series of foregoing
transactions resulted in changes to plaintiffs' retirement benefits
which are now contested on a purported class-wide basis in the
lawsuit.
The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary
theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all seek the same plan
modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former
participants in the Coastal plan. These claims challenge plan
provisions which are alleged to constitute impermissible
"backloading" or "cutback" of benefits. Claims IV and V allege that
former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for
unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently
provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to
calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former
ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable. The
complaint alleges that the purported class includes over 10,000
individuals.
The lawsuit is in the early stages of discovery and no class has
been certified. Plaintiffs seek to recover early retirement
benefits as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, but have not
pleaded, disclosed or otherwise specified a calculation of alleged
damages.
Accordingly, the extent of the Company's potential liability for
past or future benefits, if any, remains to be determined.
The Company believes that none of the claims are valid and intend
to vigorously defend this case.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. -- https://www.kindermorgan.com/ -- is one of
the largest energy infrastructure companies in North America.[BN]
L'OCCITANE INC: Reyes Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'OCCITANE INC., a New York corporation, and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2022-00052096- 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 February 2, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00203-RSH-WVG to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges causes of action for violations under the
California Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff asserts that
the slack fill in the Defendant's product caused Plaintiff to be
deceived as to the amount of product present within the product and
resulted in the loss of money due to paying "an unwarranted premium
for this product."
L'Occitane Inc. manufactures and sells skincare products.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Allan Anderson, Esq.
Lynn R. Fiorentino, Esq.
Catherine Baumgartner, Esq.
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
44 Montgomery Street 38th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 757-5500
Facsimile: (415) 757-5501
E-mail: allan.anderson@afslaw.com
lynn.fiorentino@afslaw.com
catherine.baumgartner@afslaw.com
LAWRENCE O'TOOLE: Street, et al., Seek Initial OK of Settlememt
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA STREET, RONALD
HARRIS, FUDAIL MCCAIN, ASHLEY THEIS, and NICOLE WARRINGTON, on
behalf of Themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, v.
LT. COL. LAWRENCE O'TOOLE, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02590-CDP (E.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. granting their consent motion for preliminary approval of
proposed class action settlement;
2. preliminarily certifying the proposed Class for settlement
purposes under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
3. appointing Khazaeli Wyrsch, LLC and Campbell Law, LLC as
Class Counsel and Plaintiffs Alicia Street, Ronald Harris,
Fudail McCain, Ashley Theis, and Nicole Warrington as
Settlement Class Representatives;
4. approving the substance, form, and manner of the notices
of class action settlement for dissemination to all
members of the Class;
5. approving Erich Vieth, Esq. as Settlement Administrator;
and
6. scheduling a final approval hearing.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan 26, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XmtHw4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Javad M. Khazaeli, Esq.
James R. Wyrsch, Esq.
John M. Waldron, Esq.
KHAZAELI WYRSCH LLC
911 Washington Avenue, Suite 211
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 288-0777
Facsimile: (314) 400-7701
E-mail: javad.khazaeli@kwlawstl.com
james.wyrsch@kwlawstl.com
jack.waldron@kwlawstl.com
- and -
Alicia Campbell, Esq.
CAMPBELL LAW LLC
8112 Maryland Ave., Suite 400
St. Louis, MO 63105
E-mail: alicia@campbelllawllc.com
LYFT INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for June 22
-----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
In Re Lyft, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG
Class Action
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) MOTION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND
(III) SETTLEMENT HEARING
TO: All Persons who purchased or acquired Lyft common stock
between March 28, 2019 and August 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"):
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and all persons and entities who during the Class
Period purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Lyft
issued and traceable to the IPO Registration Statement (the
"Class"), has reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") for $25,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"). If the Court approves the Settlement, it will
resolve all claims in the Action. Defendants have denied the claims
asserted against them and have agreed to the Settlement solely to
eliminate the burden and expense of continued litigation.
YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED, that pursuant to an Order of the
Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court"), dated
December 27, 2022, a hearing will be held on June 22, 2023, at 2:00
p.m. Pacific Time (the "Settlement Hearing") before Judge Gilliam
at the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, Courtroom 2, 4th
Floor, to determine: (a) whether the proposed Settlement on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the
Court; (b) whether a judgment should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice against the Defendants; (c) whether the
Proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (d) whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be approved.
The Court may elect to hold the hearing remotely. Remote court
hearings may be held by telephone conference or by Zoom. The most
up to date information about the hearing will be available at
www.LyftIPOLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.LyftIPOLitigation.com.
You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by
contacting the Claims Administrator at In Re Lyft, Inc. Securities
Litigation c/o Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 173079, Milwaukee, WI
53217, (877) 888-9031.
If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked no later than May 22, 2023. If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, and you have not previously requested exclusion from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is
received no later than April 13, 2023, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court
such that they are received no later than March 30, 2023, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Lyft or its
counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
Jacob Walker
Block & Leviton LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Email: LyftIPOLitigation@blockleviton.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In Re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 173079
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: (877) 888-9031
Email: info@LyftIPOLitigation.com
By Order of the Court
MAIN LINE HEALTH: Smart Privacy Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID SMART, individually and for all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAIN LINE HEALTH and META
PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-05239, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on February 6, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00528-WHO to the proceeding.
The suit is an action alleging violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act as
well as ancillary claims for breach of contract, negligence and
intrusion upon seclusion to redress Defendants' practice of
capturing and sharing statutorily-protected health care
information, medical records and related information for commercial
gain without the knowledge or consent of MLH's patients, including
Plaintiff.
Main Line Health is a non-profit health system with a corporate
office in Radnor, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 873-4836
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Edward J. McAndrew, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1735 Market Street Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (202) 664-2939
E-mail: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-2375
E-mail: LGoldman@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Karl Gunderson, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 862-2379
E-mail: karl.gunderson@kirkland.com
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Faszczewski v. Blackbaud
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Faszczewski v. Blackbaud,
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00012 (D.S.C., Jan. 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing the
plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.
The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.
The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.
Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives would
not provide adequate protection.
The Faszczewski case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud,
Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is
Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jHG9sg at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Jobe v. Community Medical
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jobe v. Community Medical
Centers, Case No. 3:21-cv-02461 (D.S.C., Filed Aug. 5, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order
sealing the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class
certification.
The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.
The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.
Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives would
not provide adequate protection.
The Jobe case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.[CC]
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YBhbtB at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15,
2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional
order sealing the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class
certification.
The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.
The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.
Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternativesMDL
2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15,
2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional
order sealing the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class
certification.
The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.
The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.
Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court R would not provide adequate
protection.
The Mamie Estes case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud,
Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is
Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JPGu75 at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Arthur v. Blackbaud
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arthur, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04382 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing the
plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.
The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.
The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.
Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated
Confidentiality.Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03
when filing the instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties'
briefs and a review of the proposed information to be sealed, the
Court is persuaded that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
demonstrated the need to provisionally grant the Motions to Seal
according to the ASCO.. Under these circumstances, the Court has
considered less drastic alternatives to sealing and determined that
such alternatives would not provide adequate protection.
The Arthur case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S197jP at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Atwood v. Blackbaud
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Atwood v. Blackbaud, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04516 (D.S.C., Filed Dec 31, 2020), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing the
plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.
The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.
The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.
Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives would
not provide adequate protection.
The Atwood case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RIASgR at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Bedell v. Blackbaud
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Silverman Bedell v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04514 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30,
2020), Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional
order sealing the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class
certification.
The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.
The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.
Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternativesMDL
2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud
The Bedell case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3REu8Ax at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Mortensen v. Blackbaud
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mortensen v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04042 (D.S.C. Filed Nov. 20, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing
the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.
The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.
The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.
Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives would
not provide adequate protection.
The Mortensen case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.[CC]
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xtve3v at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 3009: Byrd Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled Kathryn Byrd, individually and on behalf of all
others similiarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bayer Healthcare LLC;
Bayer Corporation; Bayer AG; and, Elanco Animal Health, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02445, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
February 6, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-00600 to the proceeding.
The Byrd case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3009, In Re: Seresto
Flea and Tick Collar Marketing, Sales Practices And Products
Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John
Robert Blakey.
The suit arises from the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and
omissions in placing the defective Seresto flea and tick collars
into the stream of commerce without adequate warnings of the
hazardous and neurotoxic nature of imidacloprid + flumethrin that
led to Plaintiff's and the other Class Members' pets to suffer
severe, permanent physical injuries. The Plaintiff and the other
Class Members have endured pain and suffering and have suffered
economic losses (including significant expenses for medical care
and treatment of their pets) in an amount to be determined, says
the suit.
Bayer Healthcare LLC is a German multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Anthony Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
E-mail: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com
MDL 3044: Faces Danzig Suit Over Defective GXL Hip Liners
---------------------------------------------------------
Genia Danzig and her spouse Melvyn Danzig, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Exactech, Inc.; and Exactech, US, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00934 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023) is
class action against the Defendant for personal injuries and
damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result
of the use of an unreasonably dangerous device, the Exactech
Connexion GXL hip liner.
Plaintiff Genia Danzig underwent a total right hip arthroplasty in
approximately 2011 at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.
Specifically, the issue in this matter is with the accelerated wear
of the polyethylene, cross linked Exactech Connexion GXL liners,
which led to Plaintiff's accelerated osteolysis. Due to accelerated
wear and/or loosening of the product, Plaintiff underwent a right
revision surgery in the fall of 2020, says the suit.
As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' design
defects, Plaintiff Genia Danzig sustained serious personal injuries
and related losses including, but not limited to, mental anguish,
physical pain and suffering, diminished capacity for the enjoyment
of life, a diminished quality of life, medical and related
expenses, and other losses and damages, the suit asserts.
The Danzig case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3044, In Re:
Exactech Polyethylene Orthopedic Products Liability Litigation.
Exactech, Inc. is a global medical device company that develops and
markets orthopaedic implant devices.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rayna E. Kessler, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 980-7431
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
E-mail: RKessler@RobinsKaplan.com
MDL 3044: Kulhan Sues Over Defective GXL Hip Liners
---------------------------------------------------
Ann Marie Kulhan, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Exactech, Inc.; and Exactech, US, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00938 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023) is
class action against the Defendant for personal injuries and
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result
of the use of an unreasonably dangerous device, the Exactech
Connexion GXL hip liner.
The Plaintiff underwent a total right hip arthroplasty in
approximately 2016 at New York University Langone Orthopedic
Hospital in New York. Specifically, the issue in this matter is
with the accelerated wear of the polyethylene, cross linked
Exactech Connexion GXL liners, which led to Plaintiff's
accelerated, debilitating osteolysis. Due to accelerated wear
and/or loosening of the product, the Plaintiff underwent a right
revision surgery in 2021, at New York-Presbyterian Columbia
University Irving Medical Center in New York, New York.
As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' design
defects, the Plaintiff sustained serious personal injuries and
related losses including, but not limited to, mental anguish,
physical pain and suffering, diminished capacity for the enjoyment
of life, a diminished quality of life, medical and related
expenses, and other losses and damages, says the suit.
The Kulhan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3044, In Re:
Exactech Polyethylene Orthopedic Products Liability Litigation.
Exactech, Inc. is a global medical device company that develops and
markets orthopaedic implant devices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rayna E. Kessler, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 980-7431
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
E-mail: RKessler@RobinsKaplan.com
MERCEDES-BENZ: Appears in UK Court Over Illegal Emissions Tests
---------------------------------------------------------------
cityam.com reports that German carmaker Mercedes Benz appeared in a
UK court over its alleged part in the 'dieselgate' scandal.
Lawyers acting on behalf Mercedes Benz drivers asked a London court
to let them launch a class-action type lawsuit against the German
firm over claims it cheated on emissions tests.
Class-action specialists Leigh Day and Pogust Goodhead called on
London's High Court to give them opt-in status to bring forward the
claim.
This group litigation order (GLO) would let the law firms bring the
lawsuit against Mercedes Benz forwards, with a view to letting
affected opt-in to the collective claim.
The lawsuit alleges Mercedes Benz misled its customers by using
'defeat devices' to cheat on regulatory emissions tests.
Carmakers are accused of seeking to hide the levels of toxic nitric
oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NOx) emissions coming out of their
diesel cars to pass regulatory tests.
Volkswagen AG – which owns the Porsche, Audi, SEAT, and
Lamborghini car brands – has paid out more than €30bn
(£26.6bn) in compensation and legal fees over its part in the
scandal including a $14.7bn settlement with US authorities.
In 2020, the UK's High Court ruled against Volkswagen in a claim
brought forward on behalf of 90,000 British drivers, in stating the
carmaker misled its customers by cheating on emissions tests.
In July 2022, Mercedes Benz was subject to similar collective
action type lawsuit brought forward on behalf of German drivers
over its alleged manipulation of emissions tests.
Leigh Day's senior partner Martyn Day said: "We believe Mercedes
willingly misled its customers and these claimants have a right of
compensation against the car manufacturer."
A spokesperson for Mercedes Benz said: "The hearing concerns a
Group Litigation Order (GLO) application that was filed at the High
Court."
"The application is a procedural step to consolidate individual
claims that claimant law firms have filed to date."
"We believe that the claims are without merit and will vigorously
defend ourselves against them or any group action with the
necessary legal means." [GN]
MYLAN NV: KPH Healthcare Files Interlocutory Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al. have filed an interlocutory
appeal in their lawsuit entitled KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Mylan, N.V., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-CV-02065-DDC-TJJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas.
The Plaintiffs, seeking to represent direct purchasers of an
epinephrine auto-injector called EpiPen, filed this complaint
against the Defendants due to unlawful monopolization in the market
for EpiPen in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, which
led to the purchase of the product at a higher price.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter last December 19, 2022,
MYLAN N.V., et al., took an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First
Requests for Production of Documents. That appellate case was
captioned Mylan N.V., et al. v. KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 22-604, filed on November
28, 2022, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.
On January 23, 2023, Mylan's petition for permission to appeal was
denied.
The Plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal is captioned KPH Healthcare
Services, Inc., et al. v. Mylan, N.V., et al., Case No. 23-3014,
filed on January 30, 2023, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants docketing statement was due February 13, 2023;
-- Appellants transcript order form was due February 13, 2023;
-- Appellants and appellees notice of appearance was due
February 13, 2023; and
-- Appellants and appellees disclosure statement was due
February 13, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:
Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq.
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM
20 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
Telephone: (501) 821-5575
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
- and -
Erich Paul Schork, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 31909
Chicago, IL 60631
Telephone: (312) 810-5824
- and -
Bradley Wilders, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Defendants-Appellees MYLAN N.V., et al. are represented by:
Raj Gandesha, Esq.
Kathryn Swisher, Esq.
Edward Thrasher, Esq.
WHITE & CASE
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 819-8200
- and -
Elisabeth Ann Hutchinson, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON
1660 17th Street, Suite 450
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 285-5300
- and -
Joseph M. Rebein, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 474-6550
- and -
Justin Bernick, Esq.
Carolyn Anne DeLone, Esq.
David M. Foster, Esq.
Michael D. Gendall, Esq.
Adam K. Levin, Esq.
Charles A. Loughlin, Esq.
Christine A. Sifferman, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-5600
- and -
Brian Christopher Fries, Esq.
LATHROP GPM
2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 292-2000
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Former Players File Suit Against Commissioner
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Popejoy at sports.yahoo.com reports that according to sports
business reporter Daniel Kaplan, a group of former NFL players has
filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL. Specifically, the
suit is against the NFL Player Disability and Survivor Benefit
Plan, the NFL Player Disability and Neurocognitive Benefits Plan,
and each member of the board, including Commissioner Roger
Goodell.
There are no specific details about the suit, but we assume this
has to do with the restrictions related to the plans and how they
pay out benefits to former players. The league has come under
criticism for its disability plans because of the complexity
involved in making a claim and qualifying and the reduction in
benefits. For the NFL Player Disability and Neurocognitive Benefits
Plan, the minimum benefit of $2,625 goes up to a maximum of $4,500
per month for a period of no longer than 15 years or until the
player reaches age 55. [GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ticket Case Certified as Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
news.bloomberglaw.com reports that the National Football League
will face an antitrust class action over claims that the structure
of its "Sunday Ticket" package on DirecTV forces viewers to choose
between buying every out-of-market game or none.
Judge Philip S. Gutierrez formally conferred class action status on
the long-running litigation, which is back at the US District Court
for the Central District of California after a brief trip to the US
Supreme Court's doorstep. The justices declined to shut down the
case in late 2020.
The ruling represents a significant win -- albeit a preliminary one
-- for the customers leading the lawsuit, which seeks to dismantle
the licensing deals behind Sunday Ticket. The package runs to at
least $294 per household and can cost thousands for commercial
customers like bars.
Gutierrez, writing, certified separate classes of residential and
commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers. The antitrust issues raised
by their claims present "common questions capable of being
established through a common body of evidence," he said.
The licensing agreements represent "direct, class-wide evidence of
an antitrust violation," the judge wrote in a ruling docketed. "If
the contracts match up to the allegations, then there will be a
violation applicable to the whole class."
Winning Streak
The suit, filed in 2019, takes aim at a rights-pooling agreement
among the teams and the NFL's sale of them to DirecTV, which spun
off from AT&T Inc. in 2021. The customers leading the case hit a
major setback in 2017, when Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell -- who
initially presided over the litigation -- threw it out.
O'Connell held at the time that the customers were indirect
purchasers who lacked antitrust standing to challenge the
"upstream" rights-pooling pact among the teams. The DirecTV deal,
meanwhile, was shielded by a statutory antitrust exemption for
sports leagues selling their rights collectively, the judge found.
But the customers have mostly been on a winning streak since then,
with one exception. A divided US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit revived the case in 2019, citing the co-conspirator
exception to the indirect purchaser rule. Both licensing deals were
allegedly part of "a single conspiracy to limit the output of NFL
telecasts," the appeals court found.
The Supreme Court later denied the league's petition challenging
that ruling, although Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a statement
suggesting there were procedural reasons for the decision. "The
denial of certiorari should not necessarily be viewed as agreement"
with the appeals court, he said. "The plaintiffs may not have
antitrust standing to sue the NFL."
College Football as 'Yardstick'
Gutierrez said in his class certification decision that he was
particularly struck by an expert analysis of the football
viewership market presented by the Sunday Ticket customers. The
analysis used college football broadcasts as a "yardstick."
It showed that without the exclusive licenses related to Sunday
Ticket, NFL games "would likely be carried on the same available
traditional television networks and basic cable networks that carry
college football," the judge wrote. "And because there are
relatively few NFL games," all of them "would be expected to be
available," he said.
He rejected the league's arguments, portraying them as defenses on
the merits that it would be premature to consider. The question is
not whether the statistical models "in fact prove class-wide
antitrust impact and damages" but whether they're capable of
resolving those issues in a single stroke, Gutierrez said.
Susman Godfrey LLP, Hausfeld LLP, and Langer Grogan & Diver PC are
co-lead counsel for the customers. The league is represented by
Wilkinson Stekloff LLP and Covington & Burling LLP.
The case is In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust
Litig., C.D. Cal., No. 15-ml-2668, 2/8/23. [GN]
NEMOURS FOUNDATION: Cannarozzo Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNA CANNAROZZO, NICOLE LOPEZ, and AMY RICE, on behalf of The
Nemours Foundation Section 403(B) Plan, themselves, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00136 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 6, 2023) seeks
to protect the retirement savings of more than 13,000 employees of
Nemours who are participants in the Nemours Foundation Section
403(B) Plan and who suffered losses resulting from Nemours'
breaches of fiduciary duty.
According to the complaint, Nemours has a fiduciary duty to ensure
that its Plan does not charge excessive fees to Plan participants.
But over the past six years, Plan participants have paid more than
millions in excessive administrative fees that are nearly ten times
what they should be. The Plan participants will continue to pay
grossly excessive fees unless this action moves forward, says the
suit.
In addition, Nemours has a fiduciary duty to prudently select and
monitor investments offered through the Plan. The Plan is eligible
-- given its massive size and economies of scale -- for discounted
pricing on investments. Instead of taking advantage of favorable
pricing, Nemours caused Plan participants to pay more for
investments than what they were eligible for and more than what
they should have paid, the suit asserts.
The Nemours Foundation is a non-profit organization in
Jacksonville, Florida, created by philanthropist Alfred I. du Pont
in 1936, and dedicated to improving the health of children.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 337-7992
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
- and -
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 577-4722
Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Class Suit Over Derailment, Chemical Spill
------------------------------------------------------------------
morningjournalnews.com reports that just four days after a Norfolk
Southern train derailed in East Palestine, a federal class action
lawsuit was filed against the railroad by a business owner and a
couple forced to evacuate.
Harold Feezle, who owns a business located at 50263 state Route 14,
East Palestine, and Susan and David Scheufele, both of East Clark
Street, East Palestine, filed the lawsuit against Norfolk Southern
Railway Co., Upper Arlington, and Norfolk Southern Corp., Atlanta,
Ga.
Feezle claimed he suffered damages from having to close his
business and being forced to evacuate, while the Scheufeles both
claimed they suffered damages from having to evacuate their home.
David Scheufele also claimed he suffered injuries as a result of
his exposure to the toxic chemicals and fumes emanating from the
accident site.
The lawsuit claimed negligence by the railroad company caused the
derailment and an alleged vinyl chloride chemical spill, defining
vinyl chloride as a toxic chemical that was unstable and could
explode. The lawsuit document detailed the damage that could
allegedly occur through exposure to the chemical.
"Representative plaintiffs were adversely affected by the incident,
in that they were exposed to the toxic substances, toxic fumes, and
carcinogens from the resulting chemical spill, were forced to
evacuate from their residences and/or businesses at or after the
time of the chemical spill. Business owners in the affected area
were unable to operate during the time of the evacuation," the
document said.
The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Neal Shapero and Andrew Thompson
of Shapero/Roloff Co., Cleveland, and Nicholas Amato, Wellsville.
They requested an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action,
for a notice of class certification to be sent to all class
members, an order requiring the disclosure of all studies, reports,
analyses, data, compilations and other similar information within
the defendant's custody or control relating to the release of vinyl
chloride in the area on Feb. 3.
Also requested was an order barring the defendants from removing
any property from the derailment site that could be useful to the
plaintiffs or their experts, from destroying any records which
recorded events regarding the train in the 72 hours preceding the
event, and from inducing any member of the class action to sign a
document releasing the company from any claims of class action suit
members.
The lawsuit asked for an order to make the railroad abate the
nuisance and risks from the release of toxic substances.
The case has been assigned to Judge Benita Pearson.
No responses have been filed by Norfolk Southern, according to the
court docket. [GN]
NV MAINTENANCE: Ramirez Sues Over Janitorial Workers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ysabel Ramirez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NV Maintenance Services LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00874 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for federal and state claims relating to
Plaintiff's unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
spread-of-hours wages, failure to maintain records pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards, the New York Labor Law, and related
provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.
Plaintiff Ramirez is a former employee of Defendants, employed
primarily as a janitorial worker from May 17, 2020 until August 14,
2022.
NV Maintenance Services LLC offers a wide range of residential
cleaning services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
PIAZZA ROMANA: Faces Castellano Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
TERESO CASTELLANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIAZZA ROMANA, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV02435 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 6, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' engagement in a uniform policy and systematic
scheme of wage abuse against Plaintiff in violation of the
California Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order, including, without limitation, failing to
provide meal and rest breaks, failing to pay minimum and overtime
wages, failing to provide accurate wage statements, and failing to
pay all earned wages upon separation of employment.
Plaintiff Castellano was employed by Piazza Romana as a dishwasher
from approximately February 15, 2022 to the present at Piazza
Romana Los Angeles location as a non-exempt general laborer
employee.
Piazza Romana, LLC is an Italian restaurant based in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Adams, Esq.
Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
KJT LAW GROUP LLP
230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
Glendale, CA 91206
Telephone: (818) 507-8525
E-mail: chris@kjtlawgroup.com
vache@kjtlawgroup.com
caspar@kjtlawgroup.com
RED RACKS: Miller FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEXANDRIA MILLER, individually and on behalf of
all others, Plaintiff v. RED RACKS THRIFT STORE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 22BU-CC01827, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Buchanan County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri on February 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 23-cv-06017 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's petition alleges Defendant's violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
Red Racks Thrift Store, LLC is a thrift store in Kansas City,
Missouri.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Justin M. Dean, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
700 W. 47th St., Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 471-1301
Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
E-mail: justin.dean@ogletree.com
ROMAN HEALTH: Siegfried Wiretapping Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GAVIN SIEGFRIED, individually, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff vs. ROMAN HEALTH
VENTURES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00415, was transferred
from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania on February 6, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-00215-CCC to the proceeding.
The suit is an action for damages arising from Defendant's unlawful
wiretapping of Plaintiff's communications without consent or
notice, in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act and the
Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control
Act.
Roman Health Ventures Inc. owns and operates www.ro.co. and engages
in the business of selling medical products direct to
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
Facsimile: (973) 525-2552
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Class Action Claims Products Falsely Advertised
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that a paint buyer
sued Rust-Oleum, alleging the company sells paint-and-primer
products that don't work without also buying a primer.
Plaintiff Michael Nemirovsky filed the class action lawsuit against
Rust-Oleum Corporation on Feb. 6 in a New York federal court,
alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws.
The plaintiff alleges that the paint company falsely markets some
of its paint-and-primer-in-one products, including
Rust-Oleum Painter's Touch 2x Ultra Cover Paint + Primer
Rust-Oleum Universal Flat Paint & Primer in One Spray Paint
Zinsser Covers Up Ceiling Paint & Primer In One
and many more.
According to the lawsuit, the company makes and sells the products
with the claim that they are "Paint & Primer."
Reasonable consumers believe that products that claim to offer
"Paint & Primer" contain both paint and primer in that product and
that the consumer will get the benefits of both a paint and a
primer from just the one product, the Rust-Oleum class action
states.
"However, Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false,
deceptive and misleading since the Products do not work as
represented as they do not adequately cover and adhere to the
surface without first separately applying primer," according to the
lawsuit.
Consumers wasted money on the Rust-Oleum paint-and-primer products,
lawsuit alleges
Consumers were led to believe the paint-and-primer products could
cover and adhere to the surface in one coat without needing to
separately purchase primer and apply primer to the surface before
the paint, the Rust-Oleum class action states.
"In other words, the Products were marketed as saving the purchaser
the additional cost, time, and effort of going through the process
of priming the surface before painting it," the lawsuit claims.
"Because this marketing claim was false, Plaintiffs and Class
members were forced to incur additional money, time, and effort in
order to achieve a properly painted surface."
Nemirovsky claims Rust-Oleum is well-aware of the issues with the
products, pointing to multiple online complaints. He seeks to
represent all consumers who purchased the products anywhere in the
United States, plus a New York subclass.
Nemirovsky sued for violations of state consumer laws, New York
General Business Law and breach of warranty,and seeks certification
of the class action, damages of $500 per transaction, fees, costs
and a jury trial.
In other Rust-Oleum news, in 2021, Rust-Oleum recalled an aerosol
galvanizing compound spray over concerns the cans pose an injury
hazard. [GN]
SACRAMENTO, CA: Disabled Sues Over Homeless Camps on Sidewalks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Grimes at californiaglobe.com reports that Sacramento is being
sued in a class-action lawsuit by a group of disabled citizens over
homeless camps on city sidewalks.
It wasn't enough for business owners, office workers, and mothers
walking with children to complain to city officials about drug
addicted vagrants blocking city sidewalks. Most people's complaints
were ignored, despite violent confrontations with homeless, and
daily harassment. Businesses have even closed in the City and along
the Broadway corridor citing daily dangerous confrontations and
harassment of employees and patrons by homeless vagrants.
The number of homeless living on Sacramento streets has increased
significantly over the past three years, according to the July
Point-in-Time count released by Sacramento Steps Forward.
Even the New York Post reported on the shocking growth of
Sacramento's homeless population: An official count from February
found 9,278 people homeless throughout Sacramento county -- a 67%
increase over the 5,570 during the previous count in 2019. The vast
majority of them, more than 5,000, were sleeping rough within the
capital city itself, the Point-in-Time Count noted.
It's even worse six months later.
As the Globe reported in April, Sacramento County has more than
11,200 homeless living on the streets and in the parks, and all
shelter beds and spaces are full on any given night. And those were
numbers provided by Sacramento Steps Forward.
Someone can't count.
So, as the Sacramento City Council and Mayor have allowed drug
addicted homeless vagrants to block city sidewalks with no regard
for the plight and fear of downtown workers, business owners and
shoppers, everyone navigating the sidewalks has been forced out
onto the busy streets to avoid the sidewalk tent camps and crazy
drug addicts – which just is not possible for the disabled.
The Sacramento Bee reported:
The suit was filed on behalf of Susan Hood, a 64-year-old legally
blind Arden Arcade resident, and Chester McNabb, a 66-year-old
downtown Sacramento resident who has trouble walking and uses an
electric scooter to get around.
But the action has the potential to affect up to 200,000 other
disabled residents of Sacramento, with the suit noting that 12.4%
of the county's residents and 11.8% of the city's residents are
considered disabled. The suit also could affect anyone else who has
had to maneuver around tents and campsites outside City Hall or on
sidewalks throughout the region.
A county spokeswoman declined to comment on pending litigation, and
a city spokesman declined to comment because the city had not yet
been served with the complaint.
The suit cites violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and other measures enacted to protect the disabled, and it asks for
a court order requiring the city and county to clear sidewalks and
require a 10-foot buffer zone from sidewalks "to shield class
members from threats to their personal safety which they regularly
experience when navigating close to tent encampments."
While Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg has solely focused on
spending federal and state funds on renovated motels, apartments
and tiny homes for the city's homeless (he calls them the
"unhoused"), he ignores that they need treatment, and in some cases
incarceration.
What the local elected officials don't understand is Sacramento
residents no longer care whose fault it is. Residents just know
nothing is being done, and that officials are actually allowing the
drug-addicted vagrants to live in public parks, on sidewalks and
along the rivers putting our children, the elderly, disabled, moms,
dads and families, homes, businesses and pets in jeopardy, the
Globe reported in September.
The Sacramento City Council actually gave Miller Park, a
once-lovely city park, over to a homeless tent camp along the
Sacramento River.
When is Sacramento going to grow up and start electing serious
people who care about governing?
The Globe will follow this lawsuit and provide updates.[GN]
SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: White Sues Over Mislabeled Frozen Apple Pies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annie White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Schwan's Consumer Brands, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00147 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 4, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, and violation of the Wisconsin Unfair Trade
Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud Acts due to alleged
misrepresentations of frozen apple pie products.
Schwan's Consumer Brands manufactures, markets, and sells frozen
apple pie promoted as containing a "Flaky Crust Made With Real
Butter" under the Mrs. Smith's brand. The front label contains
pictures of two pats of fresh butter, one and a half apples, and a
blue ribbon seal, emblematic of state fairs of lore.
The complaint alleges that though the front label prominently
states the crust is "MADE WITH REAL BUTTER," Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers are misled because its primary
shortening ingredient is "Palm Oil," shown in the fine print of the
side panel in the ingredient list as part of an ingredient called
"Shortening Butter Blend." As a result of the false and misleading
representations, the product is sold at premium price,
approximately not less than $6.39 per pie, excluding tax and sales,
says the suit.
Schwan's Consumer Brands, Inc. is a frozen food delivery
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Suite 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
SENDAYCO LLC: Klar Sues Over Deceptive Pure Body Naturals Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Klar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sendayco, LLC d/b/a Pure Body Naturals,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00823 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023) is
brought pursuant to the New York General Business Law seeking to
remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the
Defendant regarding the marketing and sales of Pure Body Naturals
beauty products throughout the state of New York and throughout the
United States.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and
distributes the products using a marketing and advertising campaign
centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers,
including Plaintiff, i.e., that its products are "Pure" and/or
"100% Natural" and/or "Natural" and/or "100% Pure"; however,
Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive,
and misleading because the products contain non-natural, synthetic
ingredients, asserts the complaint.
Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the
products based on Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and
Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid,
says the complaint.
Sendayco, LLC, d/b/a Pure Body Naturals, is a beauty products
manufacturer with its principal place of business in Dayton,
Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Students' Info, Smith Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSANNAH SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:23-cv-10261 (D. Mass.,
Jan. 31, 2023) alleges that Suffolk failed to properly secure and
safeguard its students' sensitive personally identifiable
information, including full names, Social Security Numbers,
Driver's License numbers, state identification numbers, financial
account information, and protected health information.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to comply with
industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII,
and failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to the
Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII had been
compromised.
On November 30, 2022, Suffolk notified its current and former
students that their PII that had been stored on Suffolk's computer
network had been accessed and removed by an unauthorized
third-party.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to
implement and follow basic security procedures, the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII is now in the hands of cybercriminals, the
lawsuit claims.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal
mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. They
seek damages, orders requiring Suffolk to fully and accurately
disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised
and to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices and
safeguards to prevent incidents like this from reoccurring in the
future, and for Suffolk to provide identity theft protective
services to the Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes, as
the Plaintiff and Class Members will be at an increased risk of
identity theft due to the conduct of Suffolk.
The Plaintiff was a student at Suffolk from 2014 until she
graduated in 2018.
Suffolk is a private university that offers bachelor's, master's,
and doctoral degree programs in its Law School, College of Arts &
Sciences, and Sawyer Business School.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 580-8270
Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
737 Bainbridge Street #155
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
TEXAS: Faces Robertson Suit Over Prisoners' Confinement Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK ROBERTSON; GEORGE CURRY; TONY EGBUNA FORD; and RICKEY
CUMMINGS, on their own behalf, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated prisoners, v. BRYAN COLLIER, Executive Director
of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; BOBBY LUMPKIN, Director of
the Correction Institutions Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice; DANIEL DICKERSON, Warden of the Allan B. Polunsky
Unit., Case No. 9:23-cv-00023-MAC-ZJH (S.D. Tex., Jan. 26, 2023) is
a class action complaint challenging the conditions of confinement
all incarcerated male Texas death row prisoners at the Allan B.
Polunsky Unit, a facility operated by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have violated the
constitutional and statutory rights of the Plaintiffs and Class
Members by holding them in solitary confinement, without cause or
relief, and impermissibly infringing on their right to counsel. The
Defendants' solitary confinement policy is arbitrary and needless.
Further, Plaintiffs and Class Members have no opportunity to
challenge their conditions of confinement, and Defendants have
provided no alternative to the extreme solitary conditions under
which all Plaintiffs and Class Members are held. Specifically, the
Defendants' policies and practices are cruel and unusual because
they deprive Plaintiffs of the basic necessities of human
existence, impose serious and irreparable psychological and
physical injury, and violate present-day concepts and standards of
human dignity, allege the Plaintiffs.
The indefinite and undetermined length of solitary confinement the
Plaintiffs and Class Members are subjected to poses significant
risk of incapacitation and permanent mental illness and physical
harm. Individually and collectively, the conditions at the Polunsky
Death Row Unit violate the rights guaranteed by the Sixth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I
section 13 of the Texas State Constitution, as well as statutory
protections to the right to counsel, the suit added.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class Members seek relief from the
Defendants to address these alleged violations of their
constitutional and statutory rights.
Mr. Mark Robertson is a 54-year-old prisoner who was sentenced to
death in 1991. He has spent the past 31 years on death row and 21
years in solitary confinement on death row at the Unit. MR. Curry
is a 55-year-old prisoner who was sentenced to death in 2014. He
has spent the past seven years in solitary confinement on death row
at the Unit. Mr. Ford is a 49-year-old prisoner who was sentenced
to death in 1993. He has spent the past 28 years on death row, and
the past 22 years in solitary confinement on death row at the
Unit.
Bryan Collier is the Executive Director of Texas Department of
Criminal Justice.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catherine Bratic, Esq.
Sydney Rupe, Esq.
Chloe Warnberg, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
609 Main Street, Suite 4200
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 632-1400
Facsimile: (713) 632-1401
E-mail: catherine.bratic@hoganlovells.com
sydney.rupe@hoganlovells.com
chloe.warnberg@hoganlovells.com
- and -
Pieter Van Tol, Esq.
Jack Shaked, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
390 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone : (212) 918-3000
Facsimile : (212) 918-3100
E-mail: pieter.vantol@hoganlovells.com
jack.shaked@hoganlovells.com
UNDER ARMOUR: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Consolidated Securities Action
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (the "District Court") were consolidated under
the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No.
17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Securities Action").
On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two additional putative
securities class actions were filed in the District Court against
the Company and certain of its current and former executives
(captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03209-RDB
("Patel"), and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-03581-RDB ("Waronker"), respectively).
On September 14, 2020, the District Court issued an order that,
among other things, consolidated the Patel and Waronker cases into
the Consolidated Securities Action.
The operative complaint (the Third Amended Complaint or the "TAC")
in the Consolidated Securities Action, was filed on October 14,
2020.
The TAC asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
against the Company and Mr. Plank and under Section 20A of the
Exchange Act against Mr. Plank. The TAC alleges that the defendants
supposedly concealed purportedly declining consumer demand for
certain of the Company's products between the third quarter of 2015
and the fourth quarter of 2016 by making allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's performance and
future prospects and by engaging in undisclosed and allegedly
improper sales and accounting practices, including shifting sales
between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier.
The TAC also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to
disclose that the Company was under investigation by and
cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") since July
2017. The class period identified in the TAC is September 16, 2015
through November 1, 2019.
Discovery in the Consolidated Securities Action commenced on June
4, 2021 and is currently ongoing. On July 23, 2021, the Company and
Mr. Plank filed an answer to the TAC denying all allegations of
wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses to the claims
asserted in the TAC.
On December 1, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking, among
other things, certification of the class they are seeking to
represent in the Consolidated Securities Action.
On September 29, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion.
The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the
Consolidated Securities Action are without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Confirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge
Christian F. Hummel entered an order confirming briefing schedule
regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification:
1. The Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification (along with all supporting evidence and
expert reports, which shall satisfy the requirements of
Federal Rule 26(a)(2)), shall be filed on or before March
10, 2023.
2. The Plaintiff shall depose Defendant's class certification
expert and file any reply in support of his motion for
class certification on or before April 10, 2023.
United Behavioral was founded in 1996. The Company's line of
business includes providing management services on a contract and
fee basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I73YmN at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED OF OMAHA: Extension of Class Cert Hearing Dates Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN NIEVES,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
Inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01415-H-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the hearing date on
motion for class certification and other case deadlines.
-- Hearing on motion for class certification from February
27, 2023 to March 20, 2023 or March 27, 2023; and
-- Continue the dates in the April 20, 2022 Scheduling Order
commensurate with the new hearing date and anticipated
issuance of an order on the Motion for Class
Certification.
On July 6, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her class action complaint
against United in the Superior Court for the State of California
County of San Diego, Case No. 37-7 2021-00028736-CU-IC-CTL, titled
Marilyn Nieves, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, Plaintiff
vs. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, a Nebraska Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, which was removed to
this Court.
Following the issuance of this Court's Order denying United's
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, United responded to
Plaintiff's FAC on February 24, 2022. Discovery was stayed until
the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (ENE), which was completed
in the action on April 14, 15 2022.
On April 20, 2022, the Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulating
Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings. That Order, among other
things, set deadlines for fact discovery, designation of expert
witnesses and completion of all expert discovery, a mandatory
settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford, a
filing date for pretrial motions, and a pretrial conference with
all of the necessary pretrial filings.
The following day, on April 21, 2022, the Court issued a Separate
Scheduling Order Regulating Class Discovery and the Filing of Any
Class 24 Motions.
Specifically, that Order stated:
-- The deadline to complete class discovery is July 22, 2022;
-- The deadline to file discovery motions for class discovery
is August 19, 2022; and
-- The deadline to file a class certification motion is
September 19, 2022.
The April 21, 2022 Order did not set any briefing schedule, but
only the date to file a motion for class certification.
Following the ENE, and given the deadlines set by the Court, the
Parties promptly commenced extensive written discovery, focusing on
class-related issues.
The Parties also completed several depositions in the case,
including Plaintiff's deposition, the deposition of a United
employee, and a set of FRCP 30(b)(6) depositions of United that
contained separate categories of testimony.
After the Parties met and conferred to try and resolve certain
limited 11 -related issues, a few of those issues remained
unresolved, and the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination
of Discovery Disputes on October 28, 2022, supplemented by notices
of new authorities issued after the filing of the joint motion.
On December 13, 2022, Magistrate Judge Crawford issued an Order Re
Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Disputes, granting in
part and denying in part Plaintiff's request for an order
compelling United to provide additional responses to
interrogatories and a document request.
On July 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Crawford issued a combined (1)
Order Amending Scheduling Order Regarding Class Discovery and the
Filing of Any Class Certification Motions and (2) Order Granting
the Parties' Joint Motion to Extend the Class-Related Deadlines.
The Amended Scheduling Order stated:
-- The deadline to complete class discovery is November 23,
2022;
-- The deadline to file discovery motions for class discovery
is December 19, 2022; and
-- The deadline to file a class certification motion is
January 16, 2023.
The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification on January
13, 2023, with a hearing date on the motion for February 27, 2023.
Prior to the filing of the motion for class certification, the
Parties had met and conferred as to a reasonable briefing schedule
that provided adequate time for 21 to oppose the motion and
Plaintiff to reply to the opposition.
The February 27, 2023 hearing date poses significant issues for
both counsel in being able to submit 23 their Opposition papers and
Reply papers by the present dates set by Local Rules 7-
24 1(e)(2) and 7.1(e)(3), February 13, 2023 and February 17, 2023,
respectively. Among other things:
-- Counsel for United is obligated to submit an Opposition
Brief to a similar motion for class certification filed by
the same counsel as representing Plaintiff in this case in
the Northern District of California six days earlier
on February 7, 2023;
-- Counsel for United also has noticed depositions and expert
disclosure obligations in other similar pending class
actions over the next few weeks, including another second
action in the Northern District of California and an
action in California state court;
-- Counsel for Plaintiff has an appellate brief due before
the Ninth Circuit, on February 17, 2023, addressing issues
involving one of counsel's other class actions;
-- Counsel for Plaintiff has trial commencing in the Southern
District likely in early March, and a Pretrial Conference
on February 23, 2023, as well a various pretrial filings
before and after that date;
-- Counsel for Plaintiff also has a Reply to a Motion for
Summary Judgment in a matter in the Northern District due
on February 9; and
Counsel for Plaintiff has various depositions and other
filing deadlines in other similar pending class actions
across California between and the current hearing date.
United of Omaha offers a range of insurance products life,
disability, critical illness, long term care, and medical
supplement.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x57xnb at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
- and -
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19 th Fl.
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Vivian I. Orlando, Esq.
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 596-4500
E-mail: VOrlando@maynardcooper.com
- and -
Larry M. Golub, Esq.
SACRO & WALKER LLP
700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 610
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 721-9597
Facsimile: (818) 721-9670
E-mail: lgolub@sacrowalker.com
UNITED STATES: Appeals Orders in Afghan and Iraqi Suit to D.C. Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Antony J. Blinken, et al., are taking appeal from
District Court orders entered in the lawsuit entitled Afghan and
Iraqi Allies v. Antony Blinken, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01388-TSC,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Antony Blinken is sued in his official capacity as the U.S.
Secretary of State.
The Plaintiffs--five anonymous Afghan or Iraqi nationals represent
a class of individuals who, despite significant personal risk,
aided the United States in its time of need and now look to the
United States for refuge for themselves and their immediate family
members. They allege that they provided faithful and valuable
service to the US government or its allied forces in their
capacities as employees of, or on behalf of, the United States
government over the past several years, and that because of their
service, they face an ongoing serious threat to their lives in
their home countries.
In response to these threats, the Plaintiffs submitted Special
Immigrant Visa ("SIV") applications to the U.S. Department of
State, seeking lawful admission into the United States. Two
Plaintiffs submitted their applications in 2013, one in 2015, and
the other two in 2016. At the time they filed this action on June
12, 2018, none of their SIV applications had received a final
decision. They claim that the Defendants have failed to process and
adjudicate their SIV applications within a reasonable time.
There are five class representatives: John Doe-Alpha, Jane Doe
Bravo, John Doe-Charlie, Jane Doe-Delta, and John Doe-Echo. All are
SIV applicants who resided in Iraq or Afghanistan and allege that
they lived "in fear of reprisal for their service to the US
government" while they awaited "final decisions from the Defendants
on their applications." For each of them, the Defendants took far
longer than the statutorily-allowed nine months to complete all
government-controlled processing steps. Their application processes
are now complete, as the Defendants adjudicated each of their cases
after the Plaintiffs' filed their complaint.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 6, 2020, Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
On May 27, 2021, having considered the Defendants' joint status
report, and in light of the actions mandated by Executive Order
14012 and Executive Order 14013, the Court entered a Minute Order
that the parties shall meet, confer, and file a joint status report
by November 22, 2021 advising the court of: (1) any relevant
developments affecting this litigation; (2) any portion or portions
of this case which the parties believe to have been mooted by
Defendants' actions in response to the aforementioned Executive
Orders; and (3) any portion or portions of this case which the
parties wish to stay for any reason, including to await further
action stemming from the aforementioned Executive Orders.
On January 11, 2022, Judge Chutkan entered a minute order, which
stated that in light of the parties' continued cooperation and
dialogue pursuant to their Joint Adjudication Plan and Joint
Stipulations, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Entry of
Final Judgment are DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff's Sealed
Motion was also DENIED without prejudice.
"Should the nature of this cooperation change, the parties may
refile their motions with the requisite updates to the material
facts in this case," added Judge Chutkan. Additionally, the
parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Stay Period was
GRANTED. The stay contemplated by the Joint Stipulation was
extended until March 11, 2022. The parties' obligation to respond
to the May 21, 2021 Minute Order was stayed pending further order
of the court.
On March 16, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion for leave to file
a response to the May 27, 2021 Order.
On March 30, 2022, Afghan and Iraqi Allies also filed a cross
motion to lift stay nunc pro tunc and opposition to Defendants'
motion for leave to file a response to the May 27, 2021 Order.
On April 28, 2022, the Court entered anew a Minute Order wherein
Defendants' motion for leave to file response to the May 27, 2021
Order was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Plaintiff's cross
motion to lift stay was also GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The stay contemplated by the court's March 15, 2022 Minute Order
was extended until further order of the court.
The Plaintiffs previously filed an appeal regarding this order.
On May 24, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion for relief from
judgment.
On June 24, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a cross motion to enforce and
clarify the Court's orders.
On November 30, 2022, Judge Chutkan entered an Order granting in
part and denying in part Defendants' motion for relief from
judgment; and granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's
cross motion to enforce and clarify the Court's orders.
On December 1, 2022, the Court entered a minute order stating that
it has determined that the action should be referred to a
Magistrate Judge for the development of a new adjudication plan and
limited discovery related to that plan. Accordingly, the case was
randomly referred to Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya for
Discovery.
The Defendants are appealing, among other things, the Order
Referring the Case to the Magistrate Judge, the Order on Motion for
Relief from Judgment, and the Order on Motion to Enforce. This
appellate case is captioned as Antony Blinken, et al. v. Afghan and
Iraqi Allies, Case No. 23-5025, filed on January 31, 2023, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- APPELLANT docketing statement is due on March 6, 2023;
-- APPELLANT certificate as to parties is due on March 6, 2023;
-- APPELLANT statement of issues is due on March 6, 2023;
-- APPELLANT underlying decision is due on March 6, 2023;
-- APPELLANT deferred appendix statement is due on March 6,
2023;
-- APPELLANT entry of appearance is due on March 6, 2023;
-- APPELLANT transcript status report is due on March 6, 2023;
-- APPELLANT procedural motions are due on March 6, 2023;
-- APPELLANT dispositive motions are due on March 20, 2023;
-- APPELLEE certificate as to parties is due on March 6, 2023;
-- APPELLEE entry of appearance is due on March 6, 2023;
-- APPELLEE procedural motions are due on March 6, 2023; and
-- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on March 20, 2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants Antony J. Blinken, et al., are represented
by:
DOJ Appellate Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-2000
Plaintiff-Appellee Afghan and Iraqi Allies, Under Serious Threat
Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States, on Their
Own and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Mariko Hirose, Esq.
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, INC.
One Battery Park Plaza, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (516) 701-4620
- and -
Linda Martin, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER LLP
601 Lexington Avenue 31st Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-4000
UNITED STATES: Court Allows Police Impersonation Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court granted class certification in Kidd v. Mayorkas, a
lawsuit challenging U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement's
(ICE) practice of impersonating police officers, among other
tactics, when conducting warrantless arrests of community members
at their homes.
"This development is monumental for the millions of undocumented
people who consider the U.S. their home," said Lizbeth Abeln,
deportation defense director of the Inland Coalition for Immigrant
Justice (ICIJ), a plaintiff in the case. "We will continue to equip
community members with knowledge of their rights while standing
steadfast in our fight to end ICE's abusive practices. All people
deserve due process but, above all, they should be able to feel
safe in their own homes."
The order certifies two classes of residents in the Southern
California region, including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties,
who have been or are at risk of being subjected to the policies and
practices challenged in the lawsuit.
"Families subjected to these deceptive ICE procedures are
unknowingly thrown into a carceral system they lack the legal
resources to face," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), a plaintiff in the
case. "These tactics are incursions into the privacy of our
community members' homes that gravely undermine efforts to bring
about public safety by fostering trust. The court can and should
put a stop to these unconstitutional practices once and for all."
These tactics include where ICE conducts an immigration enforcement
operation at a home without proper identification by agents or
without a warrant or valid consent. Evidence shows that these
practices are widespread and have been endorsed by high-ranking
officials in the agency.
"The court's decision confirms that ICE's practices impact not just
a handful of individuals but our community as a whole," said
Stephanie Padilla, staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of
Southern California. "Now, we can proceed with seeking class-wide
relief against ICE's unconstitutional enforcement actions."
The case was filed in April 2020 by attorneys with the ACLU SoCal,
the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic and the law
firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.
"This is a critical step forward in the litigation of this case,
for our clients and for all those impacted by ICE's practices,"
said Giovanni Saarman González, an attorney with Munger, Tolles &
Olson LLP.
The court will hear motions for final relief in the case by June
12. A trial in the case is scheduled to commence August 29.
"This decision was only possible because individuals in the
community courageously came forward to tell their stories," said
Sandra Guzman, a third-year student with the UCI Immigrant Rights
Clinic. "We look forward to continuing to fight alongside them and
the plaintiff classes." [GN]
UNIV. OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Favell Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled IOLA FAVELL, SUE ZARNOWSKI, and MARIAH CUMMINGS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and 2U, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 22STCV39350, was removed from the Superior Court of California
for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on February 3, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00846-SPG-MAR to the proceeding.
On January 5, 2023, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves as well as
a purported nationwide class of all students who were enrolled in
an online graduate degree program at USC Rossier from April 1, 2009
through April 27, 2022, served the complaint and summons on 2U
asserting claims against USC and 2U for alleged violations of
California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition
Law, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
University of Southern California is a private research university
in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
E-mail: elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
melanie.blunschi@lw.com
VANDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Gordon Securities Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2023, that the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has issued
final judgment and approval of settlement for the Gordon securities
class action in January 2023 and dismissed the case with
prejudice.
In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (New York District Court) naming the
Company and certain of its officers as defendants.
An amended complaint was filed in July 2019. The amended complaint,
filed on behalf of a purported stockholder, asserted claims on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between November 4, 2015 and
February 11, 2019 (the Class), for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt®,
HETLIOZ® and the Company's interactions with the FDA regarding
tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019.
In March 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
In March 2021, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied
in part.
In May 2022, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement for
$11.5 million to resolve the claims asserted with no admission of
wrongdoing by any defendant.
The settlement was preliminarily approved by the New York District
Court in September 2022.
Payment of the settlement amount was made by the Company's insurers
into an escrow account and is recognized in the Consolidated
Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2022 in prepaid and other current
assets and accounts payable and accrued liabilities.
In January 2023, the New York District Court fully and finally
approved the settlement and issued its final judgment and order of
dismissal with prejudice, thereby resolving the class action with
respect to all plaintiffs other than three individuals who
requested exclusion from the Class.
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated on November 13, 2002, is
a
biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the
development and commercialization of therapies to address unmet
medical needs. The company is based in Washington, D.C.
*********
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 ***