/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230223.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 23, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 40 Headlines AMEC FOSTER: Wadley Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend AOT Class Suit in IL ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend Green Plains Suit in IL ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend United Wisconsin Suit AVALARA INC: Pomerantz Named Lead Counsel in Parekh Class Suit BESTCARE EXPRESS: Malan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BEYOND MEAT: Miller Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois BRP GROUP: Violates Delaware General Corporation Law, Wagner Says CALLOOH CALLAY: Miranda Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CARNIVAL CORP: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Price Class Suit Alleges CAROLYN ROWAN: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CARRIZO (MARCELLUS): Bids for Summary Judgment in Slamon Suit OK'd CITIBANK NA: Cassese Sues Over Unauthorized Transactions COCA-COLA CO: Hawkins' 1st Amended Suit Dismissed With Prejudice COINBASE GLOBAL: Underwood Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Dixon Sues Over Deceptive & Misleading Labeling COLONIAL MANAGEMENT: Flynn Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CREATION MAINTENANCE: Faces Jackson Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages CREDIT ONE BANK: McQueen Sues Over Unlawful Credit Reporting CREDIT PROS: Wells TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Attorneys' Fee Ruling in Perez Suit to 9th Cir DMW INDUSTRIES: Denial of Alcaraz's Class Cert. Bid Upheld in Part EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Named as Lead Counsel ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Bowen Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit EPIQ CORPORATE: Sued Over Unlawful Public Disclosure of Names EPOCH TIMES ASSOCIATION: Labarr Files Suit in S.D. New York EXELON CORP: Discovery Ongoing in ComEd Lobbying Activities Suit EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Kisciras Files FCRA Suit in D. New Jersey FAY SERVICING: Ellery Sues Over Incorrect and Misleading Denials FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Maugain's First Amended Complaint FEDERAL NATIONAL: Trial for Stock Suits Set for July 24 GENIUNE PARTS: Seijo Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. HANNAFORD BROS: Court Certifies Class of Managers in Prinzo Suit HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Assise Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Koller Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis. HAVANA HARRY'S: Arevalo FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. HOME DEPOT: Files 7th Circuit Appeal in Corn Warranty Suit JABIL INC: Bid to Dismiss Huynh Labor Class Suit Granted in Part JONAS BRONCK HOUSING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perez Claims KRAFT HEINZ: Amended Hoffman Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice MDL 1720: Palladino Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y. MDL 2924: Multi-Plaintiff Complaints in Zantac Liability Suit Nixed MDL 3055: Gutierrez Privacy Suit Transferred to D.N.J. MDL 3055: Seirafi Privacy Suit Transferred to D.N.J. MICHAELS STORES: Crawford Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. MICROSOFT CORP: Beldock ERISA Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend MR. SOS: Angeles Sues Over Installers' Unpaid Wages MVI INC: Caputo Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Fiduciary Duties NELNET SERVICING: Eichenblatt Consolidated with Data Security Cases NELNET SERVICING: Freeland Consolidated with Data Security Cases NELNET SERVICING: Freeman Consolidated with Data Security Cases NELNET SERVICING: Gamen Consolidated with Data Security Cases NELNET SERVICING: Hegarty Consolidated with Data Security Cases NELNET SERVICING: Herrick Consolidated with Data Security Cases NELNET SERVICING: Scott Consolidated with Data Security Cases NELNET SERVICING: Simmons Consolidated with Data Security Cases NFL PLAYER: Faces Alford Suit Over Wrongful Denial of Benefits NJ NAWECH: Da Silva Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Overtime OK FOODS: Coffey Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Circuit PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Removal of Docket Entry Ordered in Hayden QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Ager Sues Over Illegal Billing Practices REGAL MEDICAL: Lindsey Sues Over Failure to Protect PII and PHI RENEOTECH INC: Nemirovsky Sues Over Deceptive Advertising RING LLC: Cody Files Suit in C.D. California ROADSAFE TRAFFIC: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROBERT HALF: Bid for Summary Judgment in Magallon FCRA Suit Denied ROLL & HILL: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York S.C. JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in 3rd Amended Rosenberg Suit SACRAMENTO BEHAVIORAL: Tejeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAFE CATCH INC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SEA NEW YORK: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SET AND SERVICE RESOURCES: Parvin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SKECHERS USA: Garcia Sues to Recover Delinquent Wage Payments SN SERVICING: Monaco Suit Removed to D. New Jersey SOHI FELLOW BARBER: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York STRATFORD UNIVERSITY: Coleman Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII SWIFT BEEF: Meza Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SYNGENTA CROP: Hys Farms Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. SYNGENTA CROP: Scott Day Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. TEIJIN AUTOMOTIVE: Hummel Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII THRIVE CAUSEMETICS: Blanco Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. TIC INTERNATIONAL: Drew Suit Removed to S.D Indiana TK&K SERVICES: Palma Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Enters Final Judgment in Ryan-Blaufuss Suit UNAC INTERNATIONAL: Hernandez Sues Over Misleading Practices UNITED STATES: Botello Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNITED STATES: Dickerson Files Writ of Habeas Corpus UNITED STATES: Reeves Found Not Interested Party in Braswell Suit UNIVERSAL TELEVISION: Bartley Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices UPROXX LLC: Kuzenski Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII VULCAN MATERIALS: Tejeda Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. W.K.S. FROSTY: Hofmann Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation WELLS FARGO: Blessinger Files Bid for Class Certification WELLS FARGO: Case Management Plan & Scheduling Order Entered WEST VILLAGE OASIS: Paez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages WESTON MED: Bid to Strike Carraha's Bid for Attorneys' Fees Denied WILDFISH LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WILLIWAW FOODS LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ********* AMEC FOSTER: Wadley Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled LISA A. WADLEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMEC FOSTER WHEELER USA CORPORATION; WOOD ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2205573, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00224 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay her all of her minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide proper meal and rest breaks, failed to reimburse necessary business expenses, failed to timely pay all wages owed upon termination, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and engaged in unfair business practices. AMEC Foster Wheeler USA Corporation provides engineering and construction services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Michelle L. Lappen, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com mlappen@proskauer.com ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend AOT Class Suit in IL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the AOT class suit in the federal district court of Urbana, Illinois. On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG filed a putative class action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol derivatives traded on futures exchanges. On March 16, 2021, AOT filed an amended complaint adding a second named plaintiff Maize Capital Group, LLC. AOT and Maize allege that members of the putative class collectively suffered damages calculated to be between approximately $500 million to over $2.0 billion as a result of the Company's alleged actions. The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself in these actions. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is principally into the merchandising and transporting agricultural commodities, and manufacturing products for use in food, beverages, feed, energy, and industrial applications, and ingredients and solutions for human and animal nutrition. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend Green Plains Suit in IL ------------------------------------------------------------------- Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Green Plains class suit in the federal district court of Urbana, Illinois. On July 14, 2020, Green Plains Inc. and its related entities ("GP") filed a putative class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the same operative facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to represent sellers of ethanol. On August 16, 2021, the court granted Archer-Daniels-Midland's motion to dismiss the GP complaint, dismissing one claim with prejudice and declining jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. On October 26, 2021, GP filed a new complaint in Nebraska federal district court, alleging substantially the same facts and asserting a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations. On March 18, 2022, the Nebraska federal district court granted Archer-Daniels-Midland's motion to transfer the GP case back to the Central District of Illinois for further proceedings. Archer-Daniels-Midland moved to dismiss the complaint on May 20, 2022 and on December 30, 2022, the court dismissed GP’s complaint with prejudice. GP has appealed the dismissal and is vigorously defending itself in these actions. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is principally into the merchandising and transporting agricultural commodities, and manufacturing products for use in food, beverages, feed, energy, and industrial applications, and ingredients and solutions for human and animal nutrition. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend United Wisconsin Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC class suit in the federal district court of Urbana, Illinois. On November 11, 2020, United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC ("UWGP") and five other ethanol producers filed a lawsuit in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially the same facts and asserting claims under the Sherman Act and Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin law. The court granted Archer-Daniels-Midland's motion to dismiss the UWGP complaints without prejudice on September 28, 2021. UWGP filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2021, which the court dismissed on July 12, 2022. UWGP has appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Company is vigorously defending itself in these actions. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is principally into the merchandising and transporting agricultural commodities, and manufacturing products for use in food, beverages, feed, energy, and industrial applications, and ingredients and solutions for human and animal nutrition. AVALARA INC: Pomerantz Named Lead Counsel in Parekh Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VINEET PAREKH, Plaintiff v. AVALARA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C22-1580 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, appoints Martin Sohovich as the Lead Plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as the Lead Counsel and Badgley Mullins Turner, PLLC, as the Liaison Counsel. Parekh filed a shareholder class action complaint against Avalara and several individuals in early November 2022. He provided notice to other shareholders of the action. Parekh filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and for his counsel to be appointed as lead counsel. Sohovich -- an Avalara shareholder -- filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and for his counsel to be appointed as lead counsel. Parekh filed an opposition to Sohovich's motion, but then withdrew his own motion for appointment. Sohovich asks the Court to appoint him as lead plaintiff given the large number of shares of Avalara he owns and his representation that he will fairly and adequately represent the proposed class and oversee the counsel he selected to represent him. He asks the Court to appoint as Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, Badgley Mullins Turner, PLLC as liaison counsel and Wohl & Fruchter LLP as "additional counsel." Judge Pechman finds that Sohovich is an adequate lead plaintiff. First, the presumption of appointment applies to Sohovich because he filed a motion to be appointed in response to the notice Parekh issued, has the largest financial interest of the potential lead plaintiffs, and appears to satisfy typicality and adequacy under Rule 23. Second, Judge Pechman finds that Sohovich has satisfied the requirements of Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A). Third, she construes Parekh's withdrawal of his motion for appointment as lead plaintiff as a withdrawal of his opposition to Sohovich's motion for appointment. Without Parekh seeking appointment, there is no other lead plaintiff to be considered and this effectively renders Sohovich's motion unopposed. Accordingly, Judge Pechman grants the Motion and appoints Sohovich as the Lead Plaintiff. Next, Judge Pechman is satisfied that Pomerantz LLP and Badgley Mullins Turner, PLLC will serve the interest of the class and are reasonably selected by Sohovich. Both firms have substantial experience and appear committed to litigate the action, although neither firm filed a complaint. She notes that Badgley Mullins is a local firm with experience litigating in this District and is willing to take on the substantial role and duties as liaison counsel to ensure that the filings in this matter conform to the Local Rules and that out-of-state counsel conduct themselves in accordance with the Local Rules and local practice. So while two firms do not necessarily appear necessary to be appointed as lead counsel, Judge Pechman finds it appropriate to appoint Pomerantz LLP as the Lead Counsel and Badgley Mullins as the Liaison Counsel. She grants the Motion on this basis and appoints Pomerantz LLP as the Lead Counsel and Badgley Mullins as the Liaison Counsel. However, Judge Pechman finds no basis on which to appoint "additional counsel." Sohovich's motion provides no reason why a third firm is necessary and what non-duplicative role the proposed firm might play. She finds no reason that another firm should be appointed, particularly when its proposed role is entirely undefined. Accordingly, she denies the Motion as to the request for appointment of Wohl & Fruchter LLP as "additional counsel." For these reasons, Judge Pechman grants in part and denies in part the Motion. The Clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ypr9eep8 from Leagle.com. BESTCARE EXPRESS: Malan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bestcare Express, Inc., et al. case is styled as Jeffrey S. Malan, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bestcare Express, Inc. d/b/a Vantage Transports, Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. CGC23604531 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 8, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Bestcare Express, Inc. doing business as Vantage Transports is a transportation service in Tracy, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP 880 Apollo Street, Suite 336El Segundo, CA 90245 BEYOND MEAT: Miller Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Todd Miller, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Beyond Meat, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06336 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00679 to the proceeding. The nature suit is stated as Other Fraud. Beyond Meat, Inc. -- https://www.beyondmeat.com/ -- is a Los Angeles–based producer of plant-based meat substitutes founded in 2009 by Ethan Brown.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David Magagna, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Marvin S. Putnam, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (424) 653-5588 Email: marvin.putnam@lw.com - and - Robin M. Hulshizer, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 876-7700 Email: robin.hulshizer@lw.com BRP GROUP: Violates Delaware General Corporation Law, Wagner Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ruby Wagner, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated stockholders of BRP GROUP, INC. v. BRP GROUP, INC., LOWRY BALDWIN, TREVOR BALDWIN, PHILLIP CASEY, JAY COHEN, JOSEPH J. KADOW, BARBARA MATAS, CHRIS SULLIVAN, SUNITA PARASURAMAN, KRIS WIEBECK, MYRON WILLIAMS, and ELLYN SHOOK, Case No. 2023-0150 (Del Ch., Feb. 8, 2023) asserts claims against BRP Group and its board of directors for declaratory relief concerning the Company’s violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, and the Company's Amended and Restated By-Laws. The Plaintiff contends that one of the most basic tenets of Delaware law, codified in Section 141(a) of the DGCL, is that, unless otherwise stated in a company's certificate of incorporation, the board of directors has the ultimate responsibility of managing the business and affairs of a corporation. The Charter contains no provision purporting to limit the authority of the Board to fully manage the Company; instead, the Charter mirrors Section 141(a) by providing that the "business and affairs of the [Company] shall be managed by, or under the direction of, the Board." The Officer Approval Right violates Section 141(a) and the Charter as it stated that the Board cannot effectively manage the business and affairs of the Company if it does not have the power ultimately to determine who will lead the Company as CEO. By forcing the Board to seek L. Baldwin's approval before replacing or terminating any executive officer, the Officer Approval Right also 3violates the Company’s Bylaws, which provide that "any officer may be removed at any time with or without cause by the Board," the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration invalidating the Officer Approval Right, the Merger Approval Right, and the Charter Amendment Approval Right. Baldwin Risk Partners, LLC, an independent insurance distribution firm. In connection with the Company's initial public offering, the Company entered into a stockholders agreement (Stockholders Agreement) with its pre-IPO owners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. Andrew J. Peach, Esq. Jackson E. Warren, Esq. Jacob D. Jeifa, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 - and - Steven J. Purcell, Esq. Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. Jennifer Leung, Esq. Anisha Mirchandani, Esq. PURCELL & LEFKOWITZ LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 725-1000 CALLOOH CALLAY: Miranda Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Ayde Arriola Miranda, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CALLOOH CALLAY, INC. d/b/a Pressed Cleaners, a New York Corporation, and JEFFREY CURTIS, an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-01122 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023), is brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and for violations of the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Prior to COVID, or until March 2020, the Plaintiff worked 6 days a week (Monday through Saturday), 7 to 10 hours per day (depending on the workload). On average, the Plaintiff worked between 42 and 60 hours per week. Although she was on a salary of $600.00 per week, her full salary was often not tendered, and her paystubs reflected inaccurate information. After COVID, the number of days worked per week decreased; however, the Plaintiff was not paid for all the days that she worked at the agreed rate of $100.00 per day and was not paid for her overtime. The Defendants willfully kept inaccurate payroll records to justify failure to pay for all hours worked. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff any overtime premium (time and a half) for hours worked over 40 in each workweek. When the Plaintiff confronted the Defendants regarding the overtime that she was owed and issues regarding her pay, Defendants would dismiss her concerns, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed to iron clothes, and her job duties included pressing shirts, operating the machine to iron clothes, and such other duties related to pressing laundry. The Defendant owned and operated a dry cleaner known as Pressed Cleaners, located in Merrick, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (954) 745-0588 Email: klein@nklegal.com amy@nklegal.com melanie@nklegal.com CARNIVAL CORP: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Price Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ INDIA PRICE, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00236-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2023) is a class action brought against Carnival for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.carnival.com in violation of the Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code and the federal Wiretap Act and for torts of invasion of the privacy rights and intrusion upon seclusion of website visitors. According to the complaint, Carnival procures third-party vendors, such as Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code (Session Replay Code) on Carnival's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose of intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic communications with the Carnival website, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time (Website Communications). These third-party vendors create and deploy the Session Replay Code at Carnival's request. After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, Carnival and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.carnival.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to Carnival analysis. Carnival's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the Carnival's website for the entire duration of their 10 website interaction, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of: "all persons in California whose Website Communications were intercepted through Carnival's procurement and use of Session Replay Code embedded on the webpages of www.carnival.com and seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of action, including but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs." Plaintiff Price is a citizen of the State of California, and at all times relevant to this action, resided and was domiciled in California. Plaintiff currently resides and is domiciled in California. Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Carnival is a British-American cruise operator with a combined fleet of over 100 vessels across 10 cruise line brands. A dual-listed company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Katrina Carroll, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com katrina@lcllp.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6486 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com CAROLYN ROWAN: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carolyn Rowan Collection LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Carolyn Rowan Collection LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01151 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Carolyn Rowan -- https://carolynrowancollection.com/ -- offers accessories built on the foundation of wearable luxury and impeccable craftsmanship.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com CARRIZO (MARCELLUS): Bids for Summary Judgment in Slamon Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JANIE SLAMON, as Executrix of the Estate of James Slamon, and ERIC LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARRIZO (MARCELLUS) LLC, RELIANCE MARCELLUS II, LLC, RELIANCE HOLDINGS USA, INC., BKV OPERATING LLC, and BKV CHELSEA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-2187 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania: a. grants each Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety; b. denies the Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. Presently before the Court are four motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Janie Slamon as Executrix of James Slamon's Estate, Eric Lewis, and two certified classes of others similarly situated, have filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The three Defendants in the case have filed motions for summary judgment: Defendants Carrizo, Reliance Marcellus, and Reliance Holdings (collectively "Reliance"), and Defendants BKV Operating LLC and BKV Chelsea LLC (collectively "BKV"). The case concerns a breach of contract claim regarding the calculation of royalties under the oil and gas leases between the Defendants, as lessees, and the Plaintiffs, as lessors. In 2009, James Slamon entered into a Paid Up Oil and Gas Lease with Carrizo ("Slamon Lease"). Around the same time, Plaintiff Eric Lewis entered into multiple leases with Carrizo ("Lewis Lease"). Carrizo also entered into or purchased substantially similar leases with many other landowners in Northeastern Pennsylvania (the "NEPA Leases"). The "Class Leases" accordingly consist of the NEPA Leases, the Slamon Lease, and the Lewis Lease. The Class Leases do not provide for the location at which the Lessee must sell the gas, nor do they expressly restrict the Lessee's right to choose that location. In August 2010, Carrizo assigned Reliance an undivided 60% interest in the Class Leases. Reliance took its gas in-kind and separately marketed its share of the gas. Once production began, the Plaintiffs received two monthly royalty checks: one from Carrizo and one from Reliance. Carrizo sold its entire share of the gas produced to DTE Energy Trading, Inc., an active physical and financial gas, power and environmental marketing company. BKV acquired Carrizo's and Reliance's interests in the Class Leases (among others) effective April 1, 2017. BKV terminated the agreements with DTE and arranged to sell all gas produced under the Class Leases to Concord Energy, LLC. BKV and Concord entered into a Gas Marketing Agreement ("GMA") pursuant to which BKV's subsequent gas sales to Concord would be governed by an NAESB standard form base contract and Transaction Confirmations. BKV and Concord have no parent or subsidiary relationship or common corporate ownership. Like Carrizo and Reliance, BKV does not conduct any price comparison under the Highest Price Provision and never referenced the NYMEX spot price or otherwise engaged in any valuation analysis under the Highest Price Provision when calculating royalty amounts. BKV always bases its royalty payments to No Deductions Class Plaintiffs on the price Concord receives from its downstream sales. On Oct. 3, 2016, Plaintiff James Slamon filed a Complaint against Defendants Carrizo and Reliance in the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas. He alleges Carrizo and Reliance underpaid royalties on oil and gas leases to him and a class exceeding one hundred members. The Defendants thereafter removed the case to this Court on Oct. 31, 2016. In late-2016, Carrizo and Reliance moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On Sept. 5, 2017, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count IV of the Complaint with prejudice and denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects. On June 15, 2018, the Plaintiff joined BKV as a Defendant. On June 18, 2018, he filed a First Amended Complaint against all the Defendants. On Aug. 19, 2019, the Plaintiff moved to substitute a proper party following the death of Slamon. The Executrix of James Slamon's Estate, Janie Slamon, was substituted as a proper party on Aug. 22, 2019. On Sept. 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against all the Defendants which named Eric Lewis as an additional plaintiff and proposed class representative. Carrizo and Reliance filed Answers to the Second Amended Complaint and BKV filed an Answer as well as crossclaims against them. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint seeks declaratory relief with respect to the proper interpretation of the Leases and the royalty provisions therein (Count I), damages for breach of contract, (Count II), damages for breach of contract through a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count III), and an accounting (Count IV). On July 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to certify three classes of plaintiffs. On May 18, 2020, the Court certified two classes of plaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). First, the Court certified the "Highest Price Class": All persons or entities within the Commonwealth who are, or have been, a royalty owner under a Paid Up Oil and Gas Lease with or assigned to one or more of Defendants where that lease expressly provides that the value of natural gas on which lessee owes a royalty percentage is, absent application of a contractual proviso, the greater of the NYMEX spot price and/or the prevailing local market price, or the price at which the gas is sold, and where (a) natural gas has been produced under the lease, (b) the person or entity has received one or more royalty payments under the lease, and (c) the person or entity has not released their claims in this matter. And second, the "No Deductions Class": All persons or entities within the Commonwealth who are, or have been, a royalty owner under a Paid Up Oil and Gas Lease with or assigned to one or more of Defendants where that lease expressly prohibits the deduction of post-production expenses when calculating royalty amounts due, and where (a) natural gas has been produced under the lease, (b) the person or entity has received one or more royalty payments under the lease, and (c) the person or entity has not released their claims in this matter. The Court clarified that the claims certified for class action are "Count II for breach of contract against all Defendants brought on behalf of the 'No Deductions Class' and 'Highest Price Class' and "Count IV requesting an accounting against all Defendants brought on behalf of the 'No Deductions Class' and 'Highest Price Class.' It declined to certify a class with respect to Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Court identified the common issues and defenses subject to class treatment as follows: a. With respect to the No Deductions Class the common issues are: (1) whether Defendants' royalty calculation method deducted post production costs from the royalties paid to lessors, and (2) if so, whether the deduction of post production costs violated a prohibition against such deductions in the lease. b. With respect to the Highest Price Class, the common issue is whether the Defendants compared the NYMEX spot price or local market price to the price received in order to pay lessors the highest of these prices. c. Both classes must also determine the common issue of whether the transactions between Defendants and DTE or Twin Eagle were, in fact, arms-length sale transactions with unaffiliated third parties subject to the contractual proviso pursuant to which the royalty the lessor receives for the gas production is a percentage of the price paid to the lessee. Because Carrizo and Reliance present summary judgment arguments that are substantively the same, and because the Court identifies no meaningful differences in their performance under the Class Leases, Judge Mariani first considers their motions together. The Record reflects that BKV's performance differed from that of Carrizo and Reliance in some respects, and so Judge Mariani considers its motion separately. Finally, he considers the Plaintiffs' partial motion. Carrizo and Reliance each seek summary judgment on all claims asserted against them: a breach of contract claim by the Highest Price Class, a breach of contract claim by the No Deductions Class, a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim by the named Plaintiffs in their individual capacities, and a demand for an accounting. Judge Mariani holds that Carrizo and Reliance are entitled to summary judgment on all claims. Among other things, he finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have produced no evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the Carrizo/DTE and Reliance/DTE gas sales were "arms-length sale transactions with an unaffiliated third party," and therefore the Provided Clause applies as a matter of law; (ii) the Plaintiffs have produced no evidence that the Defendants deducted any post-production costs from the values on which they based their royalties; (iii) Carrizo and Reliance have not violated their obligations under the Plaintiffs' Leases, and instead have properly applied the Provided Clause; and (iv) having failed to demonstrate that Carrizo and Reliance breached the Class Leases, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to an accounting. Judge Mariani then addresses BKV's motion separately to address the few ways in which BKV's performance differs from that of Carrizo and Reliance. He finds that (i) Carrizo and Reliance have demonstrated there is no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to whether the Provided Clause covered their transactions with DTE; (ii) because Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence of any post-production costs, BKV did not violate the No Deductions Class Leases as a matter of law; and (iii) BKV is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiffs' demand for an accounting and the named plaintiffs' individual implied duty claims for the same reasons that Carrizo and Reliance are so entitled. In light of the foregoing, Judge Mariani grants each Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. Because all three Defendants have shown there is no genuine dispute of material fact and they are entitled to summary judgment, he denies the Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3txytp from Leagle.com. CITIBANK NA: Cassese Sues Over Unauthorized Transactions -------------------------------------------------------- Denise Cassese and Louis Caligiuri, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-01157 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought to vindicate their rights for unauthorized transactions Citibank is obligated to prevent and remedy and refund; and for damages, restitution and reimbursement, as well as injunctive relief, pursuant to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New York General Business Law, negligence and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs were the victims of identity theft in May 2022, resulting the electronic theft of over $14,000.00 from their Citibank savings account. Plaintiffs immediately notified Citibank, and the police, of the electronic theft. Citibank conceded the identity theft to Plaintiffs and that it permitted unknown third-parties to electronically steal and electronically transfer money belonging to Plaintiffs from their Citibank savings account. Citibank has refunded some of the stolen money to Plaintiffs that it was able to recover. However, adhering to Citibank's own flawed policies and despite Plaintiffs' many complaints, Citibank has unlawfully refused to refund over $4,400.00 that Citibank permitted to be stolen and electronically transferred from Plaintiffs' Citibank savings account. Citibank's policy and practice is to assess blame for the identity theft on the victims even where none exists, as here, so that Citibank can avoid refunding the stolen electronic transfers, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs Denise Cassese and Louis Caligiuri, mother and son, were residents and citizens of the State of New York. Citibank is one of the largest national banks and one of the largest mortgage lenders in the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. P.O. Box 566 55000 Main Road, 2nd Fl. Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631) 407-5100 Email: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com COCA-COLA CO: Hawkins' 1st Amended Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANIE HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-8788 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Hawkins brings the putative class action against the Defendant, alleging that the labeling on its Fanta brand "Pina Colada flavored" soda is deceptive and misleading. She brings claims for damages against the Defendant for (1) violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law ("GBL"), N.Y. G.B.L. Sections 349, 350; (2) common law breach of express warranty; and (3) common law fraud. The Defendant is a multinational beverage corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Included in the Defendant's product lines is Fanta, a brand of flavored soda with various varieties based on "real fruit flavors." As relevant to the instant Action, the Defendant manufactures a "pina colada flavored" variety of Fanta which it represents on the label as containing "100% Natural Flavors." The Plaintiff also cites the digital and print marketing of the Product, which features similar images of pineapples and coconut coupled with the assertion that there are 100% natural flavors in the Product. The Plaintiff alleges that the Product's advertisements are false, deceptive, and misleading because the Product contains artificial flavoring ingredients. Specifically, the Product's ingredients list "Malic Acid" as a component of the soda, directly after natural flavors. The Plaintiff specifically alleges that laboratory analysis concluded this Product contains artificial, DL-Malic Acid instead of natural, L-Malic Acid. In at least October 2021, the Plaintiff purchased the product "on one or more occasions" at various stores. She alleges that she purchased the Product because the packaging claimed it contained '100% Natural Flavors' and that the only natural flavors were responsible for the Pina Colada and pineapple and coconut taste. Without this, she alleges that she would not have purchased the Product if she knew the representations and omissions were false and misleading or would have paid less for it. The Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint on Oct. 28, 2021. On March 22, 2022, the Defendant filed a pre-motion letter in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the original Complaint, but on April 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the FAC. On April 22, 2022, the Defendant filed another pre-motion letter in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the FAC. Following the Plaintiff's response to the Defendant's pre-motion letter, the Court held a pre-motion conference on May 17, 2022. Pursuant to the briefing schedule adopted at the conference, the Defendant filed the instant Motion on June 17, 2022. The Plaintiff filed her Opposition on July 15, 2022, and the Defendant filed its Reply on July 29, 2022. The Defendant argues that (1) the Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim under the GBL because she alleges conclusory and contradictory allegations to suggest that Fanta's label would mislead a reasonable consumer; (2) she has failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty because she failed to provide the Defendant with pre-suit notice; and (3) the Plaintiff has failed to plead fraud with particularity, as required under Rule 9(b). Judge Karas opines that (i) the Product's labeling would not mislead a reasonable consumer; (ii) the Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that he provided the Defendant with any manner of pre-suit notice; and (iii) it is well-settled that a company's general profit motive is insufficient to plead scienter. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Karas grants the Defendant's Motion. The Plaintiff has requested that should the Court grants the Defendant's motion, it grants her leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Judge Karas holds that the Plaintiff has already amended her complaint once after being prompted by a pre-motion letter from Defendant stating all of the grounds on which it would move to dismiss. Moreover, she has failed to otherwise suggest that she is in possession of facts that would cure the deficiencies that the Defendants highlighted in the instant motion and that Judge Karas highlighted in his Opinion. As such, he dismisses the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter judgment for the Defendant, and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3pkncs from Leagle.com. Jonathan Shub, Esq. -- jshub@shublawyers.com -- Shub Law Firm LLC, Haddonfield, NJ, Counsel for the Plaintiff. Spencer Sheehan, Esq. -- spencer@spencersheehan.com -- Sheehan & Associates, P.C., Great Neck, NY, Counsel for the Plaintiff. Dakotah Burns, Esq. -- dburns@pbwt.com -- Jane Metcalf, Esq. -- jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- Steven A. Zalesin, Esq. -- sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for the Defendant. COINBASE GLOBAL: Underwood Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER UNDERWOOD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Christopher Underwood, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Coinbase Global, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08353-PAE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case involves the modern financial concoctions known as crypto assets. Also sometimes called "cryptocurrencies," "tokens," or "crypto-securities," these are digital assets created and traded in the digital world. Coinbase operates two online digital trading platforms on which users can transact in the cryptoeconomy. The Amended Complaint ("AC") alleges that among the assets that Coinbase enables customers to buy and sell on these platforms are ones qualifying as securities. It alleges that these include 79 digital assets known as the "Tokens." It alleges that, notwithstanding Coinbase's practice of transacting in these securities with the Plaintiffs and other users, Coinbase is not registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") as an exchange or broker-dealer. On this basis, the Lead Plaintiffs -- each of whom transacted in the Tokens on the Coinbase platform -- bring three sets of claims: (1) under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, for damages arising from Coinbase's sale or solicitation of unregistered securities; (2) under Section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising from illegal contracts Coinbase entered into with its users to purchase and sell securities in violation of the Exchange Act's registration requirements; and (3) under state law, based on Coinbase's sale of unregistered securities and failure to register as a broker-dealer. They also bring control-person claims against Coinbase Global and its CEO, Armstrong, who allegedly orchestrated Coinbase's strategy to profit by violating the securities laws. These claims are brought on behalf of a nationwide class consisting of all persons or entities who transacted in the Tokens on the Coinbase trading platforms between Oct. 8, 2019 and the AC's filing on March 11, 2022 (the "class period"), and of subclasses keyed to citizens of three states who so traded during that period. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class defined as "all persons or entities who transacted in the Tokens on the Coinbase Platform and/or the Coinbase Pro Platform during the Class Period." They also seek certification of three subclasses: (1) "all persons or entities who transacted in the Tokens on a Coinbase platform during the Class Period while in the State of California"; (2) "all persons or entities who transacted in the Tokens on a Coinbase platform during the Class Period while in the State of Florida"; and (3) "all persons or entities who transacted in the Tokens on a Coinbase platform during the Class Period while in the State of New Jersey." On May 10, 2022, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on Feb. 1, 2023. The Court dismissed all claims in the Amended Complaint. The federal claims were dismissed with prejudice. The state-law claims were also dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The appellate case is captioned Christopher Underwood, et al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-0184, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 9, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER UNDERWOOD, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Steven L. Bloch, Esq. Ian W. Sloss, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 184 Atlantic Street Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Email: sbloch@sgtlaw.com isloss@sgtlaw.com - and - Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq. SELENDY GAY ELSBERG PLLC 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (212) 390-9000 Email: jgoldstein@selendygay.com Defendants-Appellees COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., et al. are represented by: Jay B. Kasner, Esq. Abigail Elizabeth Davis, Esq. Alexander C. Drylewski, Esq. Lara A. Flath, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-2628 Facsimile: (917) 777-2628 Email: jkasner@skadden.com abigail.sheehan@skadden.com alexander.drylewski@skadden.com lara.flath@skadden.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Dixon Sues Over Deceptive & Misleading Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Dixon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (AMERICA) INC., COLGATE-PALMOLIVE HOLDING INC., COLGATE-PALMOLIVE INTERNATIONAL LLC, COLGATE PALMOLIVE INVESTMENTS INC., GABA HOLDINGS DELAWARE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00038 (D.N.C., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought as a result of the Defendants' improper, deceptive, and misleading labeling, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendants' Fabuloso brand cleaning products1 ("Recalled Products") throughout the state of North Carolina and the country. The Defendants have improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Recalled Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that consumption of the Recalled Products may increase the risk of contracting invasive infections. The Recalled Products contain Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria, which could lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. The risk of serious infection is also particularly concerning for immunocompromised individuals that are highly susceptible to life threatening diseases and even death from Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria ingestion. This is egregious, especially because people are spreading this bacteria all over their homes by using a product that is supposed to clean their home. The Defendants specifically list both the active and inactive ingredients of the Recalled Products on the labeling; however, Defendants fail to disclose that the Recalled Products contain, or are at the risk of containing, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria. Consumers like the Plaintiff trust manufacturers such as Defendants to sell products that are safe and free from harmful known substances, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria. The Plaintiff certainly expect that the cleaning products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that are not disclosed. Unfortunately for consumers, like Plaintiff, the cleaning products they purchased contain Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria. The Plaintiff and Class Members relied on Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions of the safety of the Recalled Products and what is in the Recalled Products when they purchased them Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members lost the entire benefit of their bargain when what they received was a cleaning product contaminated with a known bacterium that is harmful to consumers health, and lives, which is even more so true for immunocompromised individuals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Defendants' Fabuloso Product that was subject to the recall. Colgate Palmolive manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells cleaning products to clean surfaces in the home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com COLONIAL MANAGEMENT: Flynn Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vickie Flynn, individually and for others similarly situated v. COLONIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.P. d/b/a NEW SEASON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00128-LF-SCY (D.N.M., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). The Defendant subjected the Plaintiff to a common policy and practice of automatically deducting time from these employees' recorded hours worked and wages for meal periods. But the Defendant fails to provide these employees with bona fide meal periods. Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff to remain on duty throughout their shifts, continuously subjecting them to interruptions, even during their unpaid meal periods. Thus, under the Defendant's common policies and practices, the Plaintiff are not completely relieved of all duties during meal periods and are denied pay for those on-duty meal periods in violation of the FLSA and NMMWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for New Season as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) in Albuquerque, New Mexico since September 2021. New Season bills itself as "a leading provider of specialized quality care of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD)" that operates "more than 80 addiction treatment centers in 20 states nationwide."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713.352.1100 Facsimile: 713.352.3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com CREATION MAINTENANCE: Faces Jackson Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREATION MAINTENANCE INC. and ROBERT APSEY, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00038-WWB-LHP (M.D. Fla., January 9, 2023) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee under the title of lawn care worker in November 2020. According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated lawn care workers routinely worked overtime hours, the Defendants willfully refused to pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid them straight time regardless of the number of hours worked. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated past and present Laborers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages of an equal amount of the overtime compensation, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other equitable relief as the Court may deem appropriate. Creation Maintenance Inc. provides lawn care services. Robert Apsey is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Tel: (813) 639-9366 Fax: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com CREDIT ONE BANK: McQueen Sues Over Unlawful Credit Reporting ------------------------------------------------------------ Yvette McQueen, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. BER-L-000785-23 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., Feb. 8, 2023), is brought to secure redress for the Defendants' course of conduct that included accessing the Plaintiff's credit report without consent or any lawful reason, which is in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff did not seek credit of any type from the Defendants. There was no other in personam relationship established or created between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Despite the absence of any in personam credit relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and despite the lack of any consent, the Defendants accessed the Plaintiff's personal information. From March 19, 2019, to December 15, 2022, the Defendants accessed information from a consumer reporting agency about the Plaintiff without her authorization through approximately 29 "unspecified" inquiries. The Plaintiff first found out about the Defendants continued unauthorized access on April 8, 2021, when she obtained her Experian credit report. This Experian credit report shows that Credit One made 15 inquiries on Plaintiff's credit report. The Plaintiff obtained a new Experian credit report on September 14, 2021, which shows that Credit One made 3 more inquiries. On January 6, 2023, the Plaintiff obtained another Experian credit report, which shows 10 new inquiries made by Credit One. The Plaintiff also obtained a Transunion credit report on January 6, 2023, which shows that Credit One made another inquiry on May 24, 2022. The Plaintiff had not requested credit from the Defendants. The Plaintiff did not have any credit relationship with the Defendants. The Plaintiff had not authorized the Defendants to obtain her private credit report or any information. The volume of inquiries made on the Plaintiff's credit report indicates that the Defendants acted willfully and knowingly when each inquiry was made, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual who was a resident and domiciled in the State of New Jersey. The Defendants are in the business of "offering a full range of consumer credit card products."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. Hasan Siddiqui, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone & Fax: (201) 273-7117 Email: ykim@kimlf.com hsiddiqui@kimlf.com CREDIT PROS: Wells TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Martine Wells, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. The Credit Pros International, LLC, Case No. 50-02022-CA-012258XXXXMB was removed from the 15th Judical Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 9, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:23-cv-80219-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Credit Pros -- https://thecreditpros.com/ -- is the nation's leading technology-enabled credit repair company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jamey Robert Campellone, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 527-6296 Fax: (954) 333-4296 Email: jamey.campellone@gmlaw.com DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Attorneys' Fee Ruling in Perez Suit to 9th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- DIRECTV, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for award of attorneys' fees and costs and enhancement awards in the lawsuit entitled Doneyda Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DirecTV, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01440-JLS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants over alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On Nov. 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of their motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement awards, which the Court granted in part through an Order entered by Josephine L. Staton. The Court granted an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,133,333.33. The Court granted Doneyda Perez a Class Representative enhancement award of $20,000. The Court also granted Class Representative enhancement awards of $7,500 each to Joseph Angelo, Danny Nissen, Marlys Nissen, Paul Holt, and Gregory Laplante. The Court further stated that it will hold a final accounting hearing on May 24, 2024. The appellate case is captioned Doneyda Perez v. DIRECTV, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-55131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 10, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Julie Cohen Lonstein, Wayne M. Lonstein and Lonstein Law Offices, P.C. Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 17, 2023; -- Appellant transcript is due on April 11, 2023; -- Appellant Beth Bowen opening brief is due on May 15, 2023; -- Appellants Julie Cohen Lonstein, Wayne M. Lonstein and Lonstein Law Offices, PC opening brief is due on May 22, 2023; -- Appellee Doneyda Perez answering brief is due on June 22, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DONEYDA PEREZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 East Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 - and - Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 East Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Defendants-Appellants DIRECTV, LLC, et al. are represented by: Amy Zamir, Esq. NESENOFF AND MILTENBERG LLP 363 Seventh Ave., 5th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 736-4500 DMW INDUSTRIES: Denial of Alcaraz's Class Cert. Bid Upheld in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RAUL ALCARAZ, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. DMW INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. F082417 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fifth District affirms in part and reverses in part the order of the Kern County Superior Court denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs/Appellants Raul Alcaraz and Robert Mann appeal from an order of the Kern County Superior Court denying their motion for class certification in connection with various class action claims asserted against the Plaintiffs' former employer, DMW. On May 14, 2015, Alcaraz filed a class action complaint against DMW and Does 1 through 50 alleging various causes of action for Labor Code violations, and unfair and unlawful business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (section 17200 claim). The complaint also included a cause of action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, Section 2698 et seq.). On July 15, 2015, DMW demurred to the complaint in lieu of filing an answer. On Sept. 18, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint alleging the same or similar causes of action. It was at that time that Mann, also a former employee of DMW, was first joined as a named plaintiff in the case. On Nov. 18, 2015, upon the parties' stipulation, the trial court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint which was filed that same day. The recitals in the parties' stipulation indicate they had reached an agreement the amendments would reflect that Alcaraz is bringing the sixth cause of action for PAGA, and that Mann is bringing the class claims. The complaint was amended several times thereafter culminating in the Plaintiffs' fifth amended class action complaint (governing complaint) filed on Nov. 20, 2018. As with the preceding versions, the fifth amended complaint alleged the same or similar causes of action as the initial complaint. On Dec. 26, 2018, DMW answered the governing complaint. It generally denied the Plaintiffs' claims and alleged 26 affirmative defenses. On June 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Dec. 4, 2020, the trial court issued its ruling to deny the Plaintiffs' motion. The order adopting the Court's ruling was entered on Jan. 14, 2021, and notice of its entry was given on Feb. 1, 2021. On Feb. 16, 2021, upon the request of Alcaraz, the clerk of court dismissed Alcaraz's PAGA claim without prejudice. On Feb. 18, 2021, the Plaintiffs timely appealed the subject order. DMW contends both Mann and Alcaraz lack standing to bring this appeal and that the Court of Appeals is precluded from reaching the merits of the appeal. The Plaintiffs' counsel conceded during oral argument that their office had lost contact with Mann after the appellate briefing was completed and that the instant appeal should now be construed as being brought only on behalf of Alcaraz. Based on this concession, the Court of Appeals finds that Mann has abandoned the appeal and do not address his standing in this opinion. However, it finds that Alcaraz has standing to pursue the appeal. The Court of Appeals concludes, among other things, that certain class claims at issue present predominant common questions of law and fact with regard to liability whereas others do not. In doing so, however, it wishes to clearly state that its opinion should not be construed as directing the trial court to certify the class for each, or any, of those class claims. Rather, it remands to the trial court to continue its analysis of the remaining considerations relevant to class certification. The Court of Appeals also notes that, in denying class certification for the claims we identify herein as presenting predominant common questions of law and fact (the rest and meal break claims and steel-toe boot reimbursement claims), the trial court identified numerous considerations that will remain relevant to the rest and meal break claims once the court resumes its analysis and which it will need to consider anew. However, the Court of Appeals views those considerations as relating primarily to the manageability of individual issues related to damages, rather than whether common questions of law and fact predominate as to liability issues. Because it analyzes the propriety of an order denying class certification based solely on the lower court's stated reason for its decision and ignore any other grounds which might support denial, it is precluded from ruling on the manageability of individual issues independent of the trial court. The trial court is best positioned to make such judgment calls. Finally, the Court of Appeals wishes to acknowledge the relatively unusual nature of DMW employee field work. Without making any findings or pronouncements in that regard, it acknowledges issues pertaining to class certification may be complicated by the nature of their work. Again, the trial court is best positioned to assess these issues and their significance with regard to class certification. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's order denying class certification with regard to the Plaintiffs' proposed overtime and minimum wage subclasses is affirmed. It affirms the trial court's order denying class certification of the business reimbursement subclass except as to claims related to the reimbursement for steel-toe boots. The Court of Appeals reverses the trial court's order denying class certification as to the remainder of the Plaintiffs' proposed subclasses (i.e., the meal period, alternative meal period, rest break and business reimbursement for steel-toe boots subclasses) and remands to the trial court to reconsider and redetermine class certification in light of the views expressed in its Opinion. The trial court will allow the parties further briefing opportunities with respect to the following: (1) the determination of whether individualized issues pertaining to claims of the remaining subclasses subject to potential class certification are manageable and whether class certification will result in substantial benefits for the litigants and court alike; (2) the determination of whether the proposed class representative has claims or defenses typical of the class, and whether he or she can adequately represent the class; (3) in the event the Plaintiffs desire to propose a different class representative, whether the Plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend for that purpose; and (4) whether the derivative claims (i.e., the Plaintiffs' third, fourth, and seventh causes of action) are appropriate for class certification consistent with its Opinion. In the interest of justice, each party will bear their own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5dmthc3w from Leagle.com. Justice Law Corporation, Douglas Han -- info@justicelawcorp.com -- Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, and Talia Lux, for the Plaintiffs and Appellants. Belden Blaine Raytis, T. Scott Belden -- scott@bbr.law -- and Kaleb L. Judy -- kaleb@bbr.law; Hodges Law Group and Nathan M. Hodges -- nathan@hodges-lawgroup.com -- for the Defendant and Respondent. EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Named as Lead Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RONALD A. SCHOEN, Plaintiff v. EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-06985-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California appoints: a. Shane Skinner as the Lead Plaintiff; and b. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as the Lead Counsel. On Nov. 8, 2022, Schoen filed a complaint on behalf of a purported class of similarly situated shareholders against Eiger, a biopharmaceutical company focusing on therapies for rare diseases; as well as individual Defendants David A. Cory, Eiger's President and CEO, and Sriram Ryali, Eiger's CFO. The Complaint alleges that between March 10, 2021 and Oct. 4, 2022, Eiger made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operations, and compliance policies -- specifically, as relating to its product peginterferon lambda, a candidate for treatment of COVID-19. Based on the results of a study (the "TOGETHER study"), Eiger announced in March 2022 that it would submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration for the use of peginterferon lambda in treating patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. On Sept. 6, 2022, however, Eiger issued a press release stating that the FDA indicated it was not able to determine if the EUA criteria would be met; and on Oct. 5, 2022, it finally announced that it was no longer seeking an EUA request, and that the FDA had voiced concerns about the conduct of the TOGETHER study. Eiger's stock price fell 29.6% and 5.01% on those two dates, respectively -- a fall of $2.51 and $0.37 per share -- finally closing at $7.02 per share on Oct. 5, 2022. On the basis of these events, the Complaint alleged that Eiger was liable for violations of the Exchange Act. On Jan. 9, 2023, three putative class members each filed a motion seeking appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and of their attorneys as the Lead Counsel: Skinner (represented by Levi & Korsinsky); James Tomaiko (represented by The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.) (Dkt. 16); and George Fareed (represented by Pomerantz LLP). On Janu. 23, 2023, Tomaiko and Fareed both filed notices of Non-Opposition. As a result, all lead plaintiff movants, except Skinner, have filed non-oppositions to the competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. Judge Seeborg finds that Skinner suffered a loss of approximately $282,523.90, as compared with $8,872.49 for Tomaiko and $7,713 for Fareed. In addition to suffering the greatest financial loss, Skinner has also made a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy. Because Skinner has the greatest financial interest and preliminarily satisfies the two Rule 23 factors relevant at this stage, he is presumptively the most adequate plaintiff. Furthermore, as no opposition has been raised, this presumption holds. Generally, the lead plaintiff shall, subject to the approval of the court, select and retain counsel to represent the class. Skinner selected Levi & Korsinsky to represent him, and the firm appears to have adequate experience in securities actions, as well as the resources and financial ability to be lead counsel. For the reasons he discussed, Judge Seeborg appoints Skinner as the Lead Plaintiff, and his designated attorneys at Levi & Korsinsky, are appointed as the Lead Counsel. The competing motions by Tomaiko and Fareed are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/574mfvey from Leagle.com. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Bowen Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- BETH BOWEN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her second amended complaint (SAC) in the lawsuit entitled Beth Bowen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04356-MWF-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for violations of the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in deceptive and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of sunscreen products under their brand name Banana Boat. The Defendants failed to disclose in the products' label the presence of benzene, a known human carcinogen. The Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the sunscreen products had they known there was a risk the products may contain benzene. As a result, they suffered injury in fact when they spent money to purchase sunscreen products they would not otherwise have purchased absent the Defendants' misconduct, the suit alleges. On July 23, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (FAC), which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 30, 2021. On Aug. 29, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC through an Order entered by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. On Sept. 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her SAC, which the Defendants again moved to dismiss on Sept. 23, 2022. On Jan. 5, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC without leave to amend. The action was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate case is captioned Beth Bowen v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55116, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 6, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Beth Bowen Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 13, 2023; -- Appellant transcript is due on April 4, 2023; -- Appellant Beth Bowen opening brief is due on May 15, 2023; -- Appellees Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, Edgewell Personal Care Company, Energizer Holdings, Inc., Playtex Products, Inc. and Sun Pharmaceuticals, LLC answering brief is due on June 14, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BETH BOWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 - and - Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOTLZ 875-A Island Drive, No. 144 Alameda, CA 94502 Telephone: (949) 342-4555 Defendants-Appellees ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., et al. are represented by: John P. Katerndahl, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 623-6016 - and - Megan McCurdy, Esq. STINSON, LLP 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 842-8600 - and - John W. Moticka, Esq. STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 259-4562 EPIQ CORPORATE: Sued Over Unlawful Public Disclosure of Names ------------------------------------------------------------- John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EPIQ CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00154-OAW (D. Conn., Feb. 8, 2023), is brought for damages due to the actions of employees, agents, apparent agents and servants of EPIQ in publicly disclosing the names and addresses of all sexual abuse claimants who filed claims in the Bankruptcy despite a Court Order that they be kept confidential and despite EPIQ's clear recognition that these claimants wished to remain anonymous and assurances that they would remain anonymous in the Bankruptcy. The injuries and harm to the Plaintiffs, and the entire proposed class, were directly and proximately caused by the willful misconduct and/or recklessness of the Defendant EPIQ, its agents, apparent agents, servants and employees, in that they: Directly violated a Court Order of a Federal Bankruptcy Judge by disseminating publicly the names and addresses of sexual abuse survivor claimants when it knew that disclosure would significantly harm the survivors; Deliberately chose not to implement proper and adequate policies and procedures to ensure that the names and addresses of sexual abuse claimants were not publicly revealed after prior incidents of disclosure of confidential information in cases it was handling in California and Canada, when it knew that it was tasked with protecting their identities and that significant harm would result if those identities were revealed; Deliberately chose not to follow policies and procedures implemented to ensure that the names and addresses of sexual abuse claimants were not publicly revealed when it knew that the claimants would suffer significant harm as a result; Deliberately chose, after prior incidents of disclosure of confidential information in cases it was handling in California and Canada, not to address a lack of internal safeguards to ensure that the names and addresses of individuals meant to have their identities protected were not disclosed, knowing that this choice would likely cause other survivors' names to be revealed; Deliberately chose not to properly train employees regarding the manner in which they were to ensure that sensitive confidential information was not disclosed when it knew that any breach of confidentiality would cause sexual abuse survivors to suffer great harm; Deliberately chose not to review systems in place after prior incidents of disclosure of confidential information in cases it was handling in California and Canada to ensure this type of disclosure did not occur again when it knew that any disclosure would cause survivors to suffer significant harm; Deliberately chose not to hire adequate staff and employees who were capable of managing confidential and sensitive information without disclosing it in an effort to cut corners and save cost to the company, when it knew that any disclosure of such information would cause sexual abuse survivors great harm; and Deliberately chose not to discipline staff and employees who had previously disclosed confidential information in other cases it was handling such that those individuals would ensure that it would not occur again, which it knew would increase the likelihood significantly that another breach would occur, causing harm to sexual abuse survivors. As a result of the willful misconduct and/or recklessness of the Defendant EPIQ, the Plaintiffs and all class members sustained severe and permanent injuries, including having their names publicly disclosed and/or available for public view. The Plaintiffs, and all class members, now live in fear that members of the public, including co-workers, friends, family and acquaintances, are aware that they were sexually abused when they were children, and this fear has created and will in the future create great emotional and physical distress. The Plaintiffs, and many class members, have told very few others in their lives about the fact that they were sexually abused when they were children and this public disclosure has caused them to feel additional shame and trauma, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are natural persons and citizens of the State of Connecticut, also residing in the State of Connecticut. The Defendant is a New York corporation with its corporate headquarters located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly E. Reardon, Esq. THE REARDON LAW FIRM, P.C. 160 Hempstead St. P.O. Drawer 1430 New London, CT 06320 Phone: 860-442-0444 Fax: 860-444-6445 Email: kreardon@reardonlaw.com EPOCH TIMES ASSOCIATION: Labarr Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Epoch Times Association Inc. The case is styled as Monique Labarr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Epoch Times Association Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01135-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Epoch Times -- https://www.theepochtimes.com/ -- is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com EXELON CORP: Discovery Ongoing in ComEd Lobbying Activities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon 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 14, 2023, that discovery is ongoing in ComEd's lobbying activities related suit. A putative class action lawsuit against Exelon and certain officers of Exelon and ComEd was filed in federal court in December 2019 alleging misrepresentations and omissions in Exelon's SEC filings related to ComEd's lobbying activities and the related investigations. The complaint was amended on September 16, 2020, to dismiss two of the original defendants and add other defendants, including ComEd. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in November 2020. The court denied the motion in April 2021. On May 26, 2021, defendants moved the court to certify its order denying the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal. Briefing on the motion was completed in June 2021. That motion was denied on January 28, 2022. In May 2021, the parties each filed respective initial discovery disclosures. On June 9, 2021, defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint and the parties engaged thereafter in discovery. On September 9, 2021, the U.S. government moved to intervene in the lawsuit and stay discovery until the parties entered into an amendment to their protective order that would prohibit the parties from requesting discovery into certain matters, including communications with the U.S. government. The court ordered said amendment to the protective order on November 15, 2021 and discovery resumed. The court further amended the protective order on October 17, 2022 and extended it until May 15, 2023. The next court status is set for May 8, 2023. Discovery remains ongoing. Exelon is a utility services holding company based in Illinois. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Kisciras Files FCRA Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Mark Kisciras, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00776-ZNQ-RLS (D.N.J., Feb. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/ -- operates as an information services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC-NJ 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (347) 526-4093 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com FAY SERVICING: Ellery Sues Over Incorrect and Misleading Denials ---------------------------------------------------------------- Janice Ellery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAY SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-60260-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought aris under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a result of Fay's improper, incorrect, and misleading denials of Plaintiff's and each Class member's purchase offers related to their attempted short sales evidence a lack of reasonable skill, care, and diligence, as well as a failure to act in good faith and with fair dealing with respect to each of the loans. Fay is the servicer of Plaintiff's Loan and the Class (defined infra) members' notes, and mortgages on residential real property, used for personal, family, or household purposes, that secure those notes. The Plaintiff and each Class Member fell delinquent on their mortgages. The Plaintiff and each Class Member subsequently requested approval from Fay for a short sale transaction to mitigate their losses. As part of this short sale approval process, Plaintiff and each Class member submitted a purchase offer to Fay. The Plaintiff and each Class member submitted a purchase offer for an arm's-length transaction to Fay. Despite the Plaintiff's and each Class member's purchase offer representing an arm's length transaction, Fay sent correspondence in response to the same stating that the purchase offers were denied because each "transaction is not arm's-length" (the "Denials"). Fay did not provide any further explanation as to the reasoning in the Denials as "the transaction is not arm's-length" was checked-off as one of more than 1 dozen possible denial options from a checklist on a form template. Fay's denial of Plaintiff and each Class member's purchase offers were improper as each such denial was based upon an obvious falsehood, that the purchase offers did not represent arm's-length transactions. Had Fay provided an accurate reason for the denial or an explanation as to why Fay incorrectly believed the purchase offers to not represent arm's length transactions, then Plaintiffs and Class members could have rectified the same and seek further approval of the short sales. Fay, in sending correspondence stating or otherwise communicating to the Plaintiff and each Class member that the purchase offers related to their attempted short sales were denied due to a plainly wrongful determination that they did not represent arm's length transactions, engaged in conduct constituting dishonest dealings and misrepresentations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a "consumer" and a natural person who is obligated or allegedly obligated to pay their loans. Fay Servicing LLC is a foreign limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Botsford, Esq. BRUCE BOTSFORD, P.A. 2524 Flamingo Lane Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 Phone: 954-663-7002 Email: service@botsfordlegal.com supportleader@botsfordlegal.com botslaw@gmail.com FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Maugain's First Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ETIENNE MAUGAIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-116-GBW (D. Del.), Judge Gregory B. Williams of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware grants in part and denies in part FCA's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs Etienne Maugain, Louise Shumate, Denise Hunter, Harry Reichlen, John Kundrath, Kenneth Esteves, John Skleres, Richard Archer, Stephen Dreikosen, and Leonel Cantu filed the consumer class action against FCA to obtain monetary relief based on FCA's alleged failure to disclose engine defects in 2014 or newer Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, or RAM-branded vehicles equipped with 3.6L Pentastar V6 engine. The Plaintiffs' claims stretch to 906 paragraphs over 192 pages and sound in 33 counts. Thirty of the Counts allege violations of California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, or Texas law. Count III alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301, ("MMWA"), and Counts I and II allege common law fraud by omission (or fraudulent concealment) and unjust enrichment. FCA is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan that designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases the Class Vehicles "nationwide." It sells the Class Vehicles throughout the United States through a nationwide dealer network, but it sells warranties directly to consumers. FCA sold Class Vehicles with a defective 3.6L engine and falsely marketed the vehicles as safe to drive, durable, reliable, and capable of providing transportation. The defective engines "prematurely fail" and are unable to accomplish "the fundamental elements of the function of an internal combustion engine." FCA has exclusive knowledge of, and has been in exclusive possession of, information pertaining" to these defects. The Plaintiffs reasonably expected that FCA's representations that the Class Vehicles were properly engineered and equipped to handle ordinary, public road driving would be true and complete and would not omit material information. The Plaintiffs allege that they -- and others similarly situated -- "overpaid" for the Class Vehicles, "have Vehicles that have significantly diminished resale value," "have and/or must expend significant money to have their Vehicles (inadequately) repaired," and cannot use their Vehicles for the purposes that FCA advertised. They filed this class action suit initially on Jan. 28, 2022. After FCA filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' original complaint, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Complaint on May 18, 2022. The Court dismissed the prior motion to dismiss as moot. The Complaint seeks relief under common law fraud and unjust enrichment doctrines; the MMWA; and numerous laws from nine states. FCA argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing both to bring claims for vehicles no named plaintiff purchased and to bring a nationwide class action. It also argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for fraud, fraudulent omission, or unjust enrichment. It further argues that the Plaintiffs' MMWA and state law express and implied warranty claims fail, as do claims under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). While this case remained in the District of Delaware's judicial vacancy docket, Chief Magistrate Judge Thygne granted the parties' stipulation to extend the typical briefing page limits for this Motion, and then enforced these page limits. As of Oct. 7, 2022, the parties had begun and intended to continue their respective discovery efforts, including the production of documents, coordinating the inspections of the Plaintiffs' vehicles, and other relevant tasks. First, FCA argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims under the laws of states where they do not reside and did not purchase their vehicles. The Plaintiffs respond that whether they can represent a nationwide class is a Rule 23 matter unrelated to Article III standing. They bring three claims on behalf of a nationwide class of "all persons or entities in the United States (including its territories and the District of Columbia) that purchased or leased a Class Vehicle." However, according to the Complaint, the named Plaintiffs reside in or purchased a vehicle in only California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Alabama, Georgia, New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Judge Williams opines that a plaintiff has standing if he can show a judicially redressable injury. And a plaintiff's injury is not pegged to the laws of different states: an injury is an injury even if no law allows recovery. In the present case, the Plaintiffs' three class-wide claims are identical, even if they invoke state-specific common law doctrines. If FCA thinks that the analysis will differ from state to state, it should oppose class certification. Second, the FCA argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims for vehicles they did not purchase. The Plaintiffs respond that they have adequately pleaded that the Class Vehicles have the same engines in all material respects that all suffer from the same defect. Judge Williams holds that since the Plaintiffs allegations stem from a defective engine, their allegations are sufficient to show, at this stage, that they and the other putative class members purchased the same product, i.e., the engine at issue, as a component of their Class Vehicle. All of the engines suffered from the same defect. Therefore, at this early stage, the Plaintiffs have standing to represent the putative class. However, the Plaintiffs have an ongoing obligation to maintain standing, and FCA will have another chance to raise relevant differences within the proposed class at the class certification stage. Third, FCA argues that the Plaintiffs' 13 Counts based on fraud suffer from six different failures. The Plaintiffs contest each of FCA's arguments. Judge Williams finds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to support a plausible allegation that FCA had knowledge of the alleged defect prior to sales of the Class Vehicles. He also finds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege misrepresentation claims with particularity. Thus, he dismisses all of the Plaintiffs' fraud claims. Fourth, FCA argues that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims (Count II) for five reasons, including that the Plaintiffs have an express warranty and they have pled no facts showing inadequate legal remedies. The Plaintiffs argue, in response to FCA's first three grounds for dismissal, that they are permitted to plead in the alternative that FCA mischaracterizes the law of all five states. Judge Williams opines that the Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to support a plausible unjust enrichment allegation and he declines to dismiss the California unjust enrichment claim. Instead, he permits the Plaintiffs to maintain a claim in quasi-contract under California law. Therefore, the Motion as to Count II is denied. Fifth, FCA argues that the warranties do not cover design defects, that the Plaintiffs plead a design defect, and that the Plaintiffs plead no facts that would show a manufacturing defect. The Plaintiffs respond that they plead both manufacturing and design defects and that they may plead either. Judge Williams dismisses the Plaintiffs' express breach of warranty claims, which are in Counts V, VIII, XI, XV, XVIII, XXI, XXIV, XXVIII, and XXXI. He also denies the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims, which are in Count III. Among other things, he finds that (i) the portions of the Plaintiffs' Complaint to which they cite do not allege sufficient facts to support a plausible allegation of a manufacturing defect; (ii) the "factory preparation" would not include a design defect; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' failure to repair allegations cannot support their breach of warranty claims. Sixth, FCA argues that the Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claims fail for three reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs have failed to show their vehicles are unmerchantable; (2) the Plaintiffs' claims exceed the applicable statutes of limitations; and (iii) the implied warranty claims under Florida, Illinois, and New York law are also subject to dismissal for lack of privity (Counts IX, XVI, XXV). The Plaintiffs respond, among other things, that they allege privity because they directly received and are the intended users of their vehicle warranties. Judge Williams denies the Motion as to the Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims (Counts VI, IX, XII, XVI, XIX, XXII, XXIX, XXXII), saves those under New York law (Count XXV). He finds that (i) the allegations are sufficient to support a plausible allegation that the Class Vehicles failed to provide safe and reliable transportation; (ii) FCA fails to dispute that FCA's warranties establish privity under Florida law; and (iii) the Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to plausibly support the applicability of the direct dealing exception. Finally, FCA argues that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs' UCL claims because they fail to identify a "legislative policy or anti-competitive behavior" or to allege "a plausible claim based on immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious conduct." The Plaintiffs and FCA appear to agree that a balancing test they obtain from Pemberton v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 331 F.Supp.3d 1018 (S.D. Cal. 2018), applies to their UCL claims. Judge Williams holds that the Plaintiffs' briefing fails to cite to any allegations in the Complaint. Thus, he dismisses FCA's UCL claim brought under the "unfair" prong of the UCL (Count VII). In light of the foregoing, Judge William grants FCA's Motion as to and dismisses all claims in Counts I, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, X, XI, XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, XVIII, XX, XXI, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXX, XXXI, and XXXIII. He denies FCA's Motion as to all claims in Counts II, VI, IX, XII, XVI, XIX, XXII, XXIX, and XXXII. Thus, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and implied breach of warranty claims remain. The Court will issue an Order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjxzczjx from Leagle.com. Kelly A. Green -- KGREEN@SKJLAW.COM -- SMITH, KATZENSTEIN, & JENKINS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Russell D. Paul -- rpaul@bm.net -- Abigail J. Gertner -- agertner@bm.net -- Amey J. Park -- apark@bm.net -- Natalie Lesser -- nlesser@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Tarek H. Zohdy -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Cody R. Padgett -- Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Laura Goolsby -- Laura.Goolsby@CapstoneLawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAW APC, Los Angeles, California; Steven Calamusa -- scalamusa@fortheinjured.com -- Geoff Stahl -- gstahl@fortheinjured.com -- Rachel Bentley -- rbentley@fortheinjured.com -- GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; Geoffrey Graber -- ggraber@cohenmilstein.com -- Brian E. Johnson -- bejohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Washington, D.C., Counsel for the Plaintiffs. Patrick M. Brannigan -- pbrannigan@eckertseamans.com -- Jessica L. Reno -- jreno@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Scott H. Morgan -- amorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN LLP, St. Louis, Missouri, Counsel for the Defendants. FEDERAL NATIONAL: Trial for Stock Suits Set for July 24 ------------------------------------------------------- Federal National Mortgage Association disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia schedules a new trial for the senior preferred stock suits on July 24, 2023. A consolidated class action ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations") and a non-class action lawsuit, Fairholme Funds v. FHFA, filed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders against the Company, FHFA as its conservator, and Freddie Mac are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuits challenge the August 2012 amendment to each company's senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments nullified certain of the shareholders' rights and caused them harm. Plaintiffs in the class action represent a class of Fannie Mae preferred shareholders and classes of Freddie Mac common and preferred shareholders. On September 23, 2022, the court issued a summary judgment ruling that permitted the plaintiffs in these lawsuits to present to a jury their claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The cases were consolidated for trial and the trial was conducted from October 17, 2022 to November 1, 2022. The jury was not able to reach a verdict and the judge declared a mistrial on November 7, 2022. A new trial is scheduled to begin on July 24, 2023. Federal National Mortgage Association (OTCQB: FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that was chartered by U.S. Congress in 1938 to support liquidity, stability and affordability in the secondary mortgage market, where existing mortgage-related assets are purchased and sold. Fannie Mae helps make the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and affordable rental housing possible for millions of Americans. The Company partners with lenders to create housing opportunities for families across the country. Visit -- http://www.FannieMae.comFannie Mae has been under conservatorship, with the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") acting as conservator, since Sept. 6, 2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder, officer or director of the company with respect to the company and its assets. The conservator has since provided for the exercise of certain authorities by the Company's Board of Directors. The Company's directors do not have any fiduciary duties to any person or entity except to the conservator and, accordingly, are not obligated to consider the interests of the company, the holders of the Company's equity or debt securities, or the holders of Fannie Mae MBS unless specifically directed to do so by the conservator. A brother organization of Fannie Mae is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Freddie Mac Freddie Mac (OTCBB: FMCC) -- http://www.FreddieMac.com-- was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation's residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. GENIUNE PARTS: Seijo Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled ELEAZER SEIJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENIUNE PARTS COMPANY, a Georgia corporation; KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a Connecticut corporation; KAMAN AUTOMATION, INC., a Connecticut corporation; RUBY AUTOMATION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2023-01301503-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01021 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, six total causes of action, five of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code, and one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. Geniune Parts Company is an American service organization engaged in the distribution of automotive replacement parts, industrial replacement parts, office products and electrical/electronic materials.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David Carson, Esq. Lisa M. Szafranic, Esq. MARTENSON, HASBROUCK & SIMON LLP 2573 Apple Valley Road NE Atlanta, GA 30319 Telephone: (404) 909-8100 Facsimile: (404) 909-8120 E-mail: dcarson@martensonlaw.com lmszafranic@martensonlaw.com HANNAFORD BROS: Court Certifies Class of Managers in Prinzo Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUDITH PRINZO, on behalf of herself and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANNAFORD BROS. CO., LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-11901-WGY (D. Mass.), Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants Prinzo's motion to certify class. Prinzo requests that the Court certifies a class comprised of "all individuals who worked as fresh department managers for Hannaford [Hannaford Bros. Co, LLC] in Massachusetts between Jan. 12, 2018, and the present, or such other classes or sub-classes that the Court deems appropriate." She seeks certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and argues that all the relevant requirements are met. After hearing arguments on Jan. 30, 2023, the Court took the matter under advisement. After careful consideration, Judge Young finds that all the requirements for class certification under Rule 23 are met, and therefore orders certification of the following class: All persons who work or have worked between Jan. 12, 2018 and the present for Hannaford in Massachusetts as fresh department managers -- including all (i) Bakery Sales Managers, (ii) Deli Sales Managers, (iii) Deli/Bakery Sales Managers, (iv) Produce Sales Managers, (v) Meat Market Managers, (vi) Meat Market/Seafood Sales Managers, and (vii) Deli/Seafood Managers -- who did not receive overtime premium pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, did not receive a premium for hours worked on Sunday, or did not receive a premium for hours worked on Protected Holidays. Hannaford, virtually conceding numerosity, typicality, adequacy, and superiority, opposes class certification, citing issues with commonality and predominance. However, Judge Young finds that both of Hannaford's objections fail because the commonality and predominance requirements are present. First, Prinzo defines a class with sufficient common elements to warrant certification. Second, Hannaford's corporate policies and procedures -- including training protocols, "standard practice" materials, labor standards, scheduling systems, standardized pay ranges, and Kronos data -- constitute sufficient common evidence to allow for class-wide adjudication. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrnsp4jx from Leagle.com. HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Assise Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JACQUELINE ASSISE and ROBERT ASSISE; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06068, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on February 9, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00177-WCG to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege violation of the Sherman Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. They assert the engagement of the Defendant in anticompetitive conduct by using its warranty to try to force Harley owners to use its own parts, in preference to the many quality aftermarket parts available for its motorcycles in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC. designs, manufactures, and sells motorcycles. The Company's products include heavyweight touring, custom, and performance motorcycles, as well as a line of motorcycle parts, accessories, and general merchandise. Harley-Davidson serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lillian Ruth Grinnell, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4626 E-mail: grinnell@whafh.com burt@whafh.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W Jackson Blvd-Ste 1700 Chicago, IL 60077 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com The Defendant is represented by: Howard B. Iwrey, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 39577 Woodward Ave-Ste 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 203-0700 Facsimile: (248) 203-0763 E-mail: hiwrey@dykema.com - and - Todd A. Gale, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 10 S Wacker Dr-Ste 2300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 627-2173 E-mail: tgale@dykema.com HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Koller Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SCOTT KOLLER, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC; and HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-04534, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Feb. 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00176 to the proceeding. This is a class action against Harley-Davidson relating to its the sale of motorcycles with warranties that fail to comply with federal and state law. First, the motorcycle warranty terms condition the continued validity of the warranty on the use of only an authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts, also known as "tying arrangement" or "unlawful repair restriction." The Defendant's conduct violated state and federal law, including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and its implementing regulations, says the suit. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group produces and sells motorcycles. The Company offers sports bikes, heavyweight motorcycles, and other accessories.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tamara Alicia Bush, Esq. John Mark Thomas, Esq. DYKEMA 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 457-1815 E-mail: tbush@dykema.com HAVANA HARRY'S: Arevalo FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled NORIS AREVALO, JUAN AREVALO VILLALOBOS, ALVARO VILLALOBOS, TOMAS AVENDANO, SANDRA BAIRES, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs v. HAVANA HARRY'S II INC., HAVANA HARRYS CORAL GABLES LLC., NIEVES FEAL, ARTHUR CULLEN, and CARLOS CENTURION, Defendants, Case No. 2022-023921-CA-01, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-20555 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for a failure to pay proper overtime. Havana Harry'S II Inc. is a Cuban restaurant based in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq. Roman Sarangoulis, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-7600 E-mail: rey.velazquez@jacksonlewis.com roman.sarangoulis@jacksonlewis.com HOME DEPOT: Files 7th Circuit Appeal in Corn Warranty Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- HOME DEPOT, INC. has filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled Zachary Corn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Home Depot, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04627, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Plaintiff initially filed this complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on July 15, 2022, under Case No. 2022-CH-06896. The action arises from Home Depot's sale of warranted products in Illinois exceeding $15. The Plaintiff alleges that Home Depot violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act "Pre-Sale Availability Rule" by allegedly neglecting to provide Illinois consumers with access to written warranties prior to sale. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of all Illinois consumers who bought one or more products that cost over $15 and were subject to a written warranty. On Aug. 30, 2022, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The appellate case is captioned Home Depot, Inc. v. Zachary Corn, Case No. 23-8003, in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on February 6, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent ZACHARY CORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James Dominick Larry, Esq. NICK LARRY LAW LLC 1720 W. Division Street Chicago, IL 60622 Telephone: (773) 694-4669 Defendant-Petitioner HOME DEPOT, INC. is represented by: Sidney Stewart Haskins, II, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-5104 - and - Barrett L. Anderson, Esq. Isham Cason Hewgley, IV, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1100 Louisiana Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-3200 - and - Maria Henain, Esq. J. Andrew Pratt, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 - and - Patrick M. Otlewski, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 995-6333 JABIL INC: Bid to Dismiss Huynh Labor Class Suit Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STRONG HUYNH, Plaintiff v. JABIL INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-07460-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: a. grants in part and denies in part Jabil's motion to dismiss Huynh's First Amended Class Action Complaint; and b. denies Jabil's motion to strike Huynh's class allegations. Jabil is a business entity incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in St. Petersburg, Florida. It is alleged to be a manufacturing service provider for clients throughout California. Huynh states that he and other putative class members all were or are hourly-paid non-exempt employees of Jabil. He was employed in California by Jabil from approximately 2019 through October 2021. Huynh asserts that Jabil committed the following unlawful practices: (1) failing to pay employees all wages for all hours worked; (2) causing missed meal periods; (3) causing missed rest breaks; (4) failing to provide all wages due upon discharge; (5) failing to provide itemized wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records; and (6) failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses, including cell phone expenses. As a result of these failures, Huynh alleges that Jabil also failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements and failed to provide all wages due upon discharge. He also contends that Jabil required him and other employees to use their personal cell phones to perform required job duties, including requiring Huynh to provide updates "regarding machines and scheduling" via his cellphone, but Jabil failed to reimburse Huynh and other employees for those expenses. Finally, Huynh states that his claims are typical of the claims of the absent class members, resulting from the same policies and practices. Huynh filed his complaint in the Superior Court for Alameda County on behalf of himself and a putative class of "all individuals who worked for Jabil in a California location as a non-exempt employee during the Class Period," where the "Class Period" was defined to be "the four (4) years prior to the filing of Plaintiff's initial complaint in this action through judgment." The Complaint asserts seven Causes of Action: (1) Failure to Pay All Wages (under California Labor Code Sections 204, 206, 510, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198); (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof (under California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512); (3) Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof (under California Labor Code Section 226.7); (4) Failure to Pay Wages of Terminated or Resigned Employees (under California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203); (5) Failure to Issue Itemized Wage Statements and Maintain Records (under California Labor Code Sections 226, 226.3, 1174, and 1174.5); (6) Indemnification for Expenditures or Losses in Discharge of Duties (under California Labor Code Section 2802); and (7) Unfair/Unlawful Business Practices (under the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.). Jabil removed the case to the Northern District of California, under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d). After removal, Huynh filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint, reasserting the same seven causes of action but adding additional facts regarding his employment. Jabil now moves to dismiss all claims as insufficiently pleaded and strike the class action allegations. Jabil moves to dismiss each of the wage and hour claims alleged (First through Sixth Causes of Action) and the derivative UCL claim for unlawful business practices (Seventh Cause of Action) for failure to allege sufficient facts to support the plausibility of those violations. It also moves to dismiss or strike the class-wide allegations, arguing that they are based on conclusory assertions without sufficient facts to support an inference of class-wide conduct. Huynh responds that his claims are adequately pleaded with sufficient facts to show the claims are plausible on their face. He also contends that he has alleged sufficient facts regarding Jabil's common policies and practices to support his class allegations. Initially, Judge Orrick holds that Jabil ignores the facts that Huynh has alleged; both those regarding policies and practices of Jabil and those about his specific working conditions. Looking to the factual allegations in the FAC as a whole, Huynh has adequately alleged the majority of his claims. Judge Orrick dismisses Huynh's section 204 claim with leave to amend. If Huynh intends to allege a claim based on the violation of the twice-monthly pay frequency required by section 204(a), he must reallege that claim separate from his unpaid wages cause of action with plausible facts in support. The FAC contains no facts supporting a claim under section 206 (a) or (b) and Huynh fails to address them in his Opposition. His reliance on section 206 is dismissed as a basis for unpaid wages under the First Cause of Action. He is given leave to amend if he can state facts regarding disputed wages under section 206. Moreover, absent authority demonstrating that Huynh cannot move under these identified Labor Code provisions for unpaid wages, Jabil's motion to dismiss or strike mention of these Labor Code provisions is denied. Hence, Huynh plausibly states his claims for unpaid wages. Except for the reliance on Sections 204 and 206, the motion to dismiss the first cause of action is denied. Next, Judge Orrick denies the motion to dismiss the Second and Third Causes of Action. Huynh has alleged multiple instances where Jabil directly "impeded" his breaks and how those breaks were impeded by interruption or failure to schedule. That suffices at this stage. Judge Orrick also denies the motion to dismiss the Fourth Cause of Action. Judge Orrick holds that Huynh has alleged his substantive claims adequately. Judge Orrick grants the motion to dismiss the claim in the Fifth Cause of Action based on failure to maintain records. However, the Fifth Cause of Action's claim for failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements remains. Jabil challenges only the records claim under section 1174, arguing that there is no private right of action under that provision. Huynh does not address the section 1174 claim in his Opposition. And the law supports it. The motion to dismiss the Sixth Cause of Action for indemnification is denied. Judge Orrick finds that Huynh alleges that he was required to provide his manager updates regarding the status of his "machinery and scheduling" work tasks on his personal cell phone. That is sufficient. Jabil's motion to dismiss Huynh's claim for unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. ("UCL") is granted. Because Huynh has adequately alleged his prior causes of action, his derivative UCL claim likewise survives. But he cannot seek injunctive relief because he is no longer employed by Jabil. However, the motion to dismiss the Seventh Cause of Action under the UCL is granted with leave to amend to allege inadequate remedies at law. Huynh has not addressed the sufficiency of remedies in support of his UCL claim in his Opposition. All he needs to plead to support a claim to equitable relief in the alternative is an unconditional statement that his legal remedies are inadequate. Finally, Jabil moves to strike Huynh's class allegations under Rule 12(f) and allow this action to proceed only on an individualized basis. Judge Orrick denies it. He says, among other things, that Huynh's facts about his personal experience with Jabil's practice of understaffing, not scheduling sufficient breaks, and miscalculating base pay, are the exact type of allegations that support an inference that Jabil's practices occurred more broadly. Based on the foregoing, Judge Orrick denies the motion to dismiss, except that Huynh's reliance on Labor Code sections 204 and 206 in support of the First Cause of Action is dismissed with leave to amend, his reliance on Labor Code section 1174 in support of the Fifth Cause of Action is dismissed, and the Seventh Cause of Action under the UCL is dismissed with leave to amend regarding insufficiency of legal remedies. The motion to strike the class allegations is denied. A further amended complaint, if any, will be filed within 21 days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p94657p from Leagle.com. JONAS BRONCK HOUSING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perez Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- WILBURT PEREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL J. MARTINO, and JONAS BRONCK HOUSING CO. INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00193 (S.D.N.Y., January 9, 2023) brings this complaint as a collective action alleging the Defendants of willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked at the Defendants' housing property as maintenance personnel from approximately on or around January 2000 through and including December 2009, as a foreman from approximately on or around January 2010 through and including December 2019, and as a superintendent from on or around January 2000 through and including June 1, 2022. The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated employees were required by the Defendants to work more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants denied them of their lawfully earned overtime premium at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Plaintiff also asserts these claims: -- The Defendants did not grant them with meal breaks or rest periods of any length; -- The Defendants failed to post any notice regarding their wages as required under the FLSA or NYLL; -- The Defendants failed to provide them with a wage statement; and -- The Defendants did not provide them with any notice regarding their rate of pay, regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL. The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the total amount of wages found to be due, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs and disbursements of this action, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Jonas Bronck Housing Co. Inc. operates housing property owned by Michael J. Martino. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd St., Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com KRAFT HEINZ: Amended Hoffman Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PETER HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-397 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against Kraft, alleging that the labeling on the Defendant's Mango Peach MiO, a flavored liquid beverage concentrate is deceptive and misleading. He brings claims for damages against the Defendant for (1) violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law ("GBL"), N.Y. G.B.L. Sections 349, 350; (2) violations of consumer protection laws of Virginia and Oklahoma; (3) common law breach of express warranty; and (4) common law fraud. The Defendant is a multinational food company with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Included in its product lines is MiO, a "flavored concentrated liquid" that serves as a liquid water enhancer developed as a convenient alternative to messy beverage powders in adding flavor to water. As relevant to the instant Action, the Defendant specifically manufactures a "mango and peach" flavored variety of MiO which it represents on the label as containing "natural flavor with other natural flavor." The Plaintiff alleges that the Product's advertisements are false, deceptive, and misleading because of the presence of artificial flavors, namely DL-Malic Acid. The Product's ingredients list "Malic Acid" as the second most predominant ingredient by weight. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's representation that the Product's flavor is from natural flavors is misleading, because by identifying the Product as getting its mango and peach taste from natural flavoring, consumers expect only natural flavoring ingredients to contribute to the taste. He alleges that because the ingredient list does not disclose that this malic acid is an artificial flavoring ingredient which provides the Product's mango and peach taste, the Plaintiff was misled by the Product's contents. In purchasing the Product, the Plaintiff alleges he believed the Product's peach and mango taste was only from natural flavoring ingredients and not from artificial flavoring ingredients because that is what the representations said and implied. He accordingly relied on the words, coloring, descriptions, layout, and packaging on the Product, on the labeling, and on statements made in Defendant's digital, print, and social media marketing. Without this, the Plaintiff alleges that he "would not have purchased the Product if she knew the representations and omissions were false and misleading or would have paid less for it. The Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on Jan. 15, 2022. On May 31, 2022, the Defendant filed a pre-motion letter in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the original Complaint, but on June 21, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the FAC. On July 5, 2022, the Defendant filed another pre-motion letter in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the FAC. Following the Plaintiff's response to the Defendant's pre-motion letter, the Court held a pre-motion conference on July 19, 2022. Pursuant to the briefing schedule adopted at the conference, the Defendant filed the instant Motion on Aug. 9, 2022. The Plaintiff filed his Opposition on Sept. 8, 2022, and the Defendant filed its Reply on Sept. 22, 2022. The Defendant also filed two notices of supplemental authority on Oct. 17, 2022 and Jan. 3, 2023. The Defendant argues that (1) the Plaintiff fails to state a plausible GBL claim because he has not plausibly pled that malic acid in the Product acts as a "flavor" or is "artificial"; (2) the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the omission of an "artificially flavored" disclosure is likely to mislead consumers; (3) the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty, because he did not establish that the Product was likely to deceive a reasonable consumer, and because he failed to provide Defendant with pre-suit notice; and (4) the Plaintiff has failed to plead fraud with particularity, as required under Rule 9(b). Judge Karas opines that (i) the Product's labeling would not mislead a reasonable consumer; (ii) the Plaintiff provides no argument distinguishing his claims in Oklahoma and Virginia from New York and the Court finds no reason to do so as well; (iii) the allegations are plainly insufficient to plead pre-suit notice and avoid dismissal; and (iv) it is well-settled that a company's general profit motive is insufficient to plead scienter. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Karas grants the Defendant's Motion. The Plaintiff has requested that should the Court grant the Defendant's motion, it grants the Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Judge Karas finds that the Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once after being prompted by a pre-motion letter from the Defendant stating all of the grounds on which it would move to dismiss. Moreover, the Plaintiff has failed to otherwise suggest that he is in possession of facts that would cure the deficiencies that the Defendants highlighted in the instant motion and Judge Karas highlighted in his Opinion. As such, he dismisses the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter judgment for the Defendant, and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p84k4fd from Leagle.com. Angele Aaron, Esq., Katherine Lalor, Esq., Spencer Sheehan, Esq. -- spencer@spencersheehan.com -- Sheehan & Associates, P.C., Great Neck, NY, Counsel for the Plaintiff. Jonathan Shub, Esq. -- jshub@shublawyers.com -- Shub Law Firm LLC, Haddonfield, NJ, Counsel for the Plaintiff. Dean N. Panos, Esq. -- dpanos@jenner.com -- Alexander Smith, Esq. -- asmith@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL and Los Angeles, CA, Counsel for the Defendant. MDL 1720: Palladino Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOHN PALLADINO, GARIB KARAPETYAN, STEVE PALLADINO, AND JOHN NYPL, Individual Plaintiffs and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; CITIGROUP INC.; CITIBANK, N.A.; CITIBANK, N.A. (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION); U.S. BANCORP; US BANCORP; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; PNC; PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE, F.S.B.; CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ("COBNA"); CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ("CONA"); BANK OF THE WEST; VISA INC.; VISA U.S.A. INC. ("VISA U.S.A."); VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION ("VISA INTERNATIONAL"); MASTERCARD INCORPORATED; MASTERCARD Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00423, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01215-MKB-VMS to the proceeding. The case has been consolidated in MDL No. 1720, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Margo K Brodie. The suit was initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco before it was removed to the Northern District of California on January 30, 2023. The Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class that the Plaintiffs purport to represent are Visa and Mastercard payment cardholders "each of whom has made retail purchases of goods and services in California using a Visa or Mastercard credit or debit card." The Plaintiffs aver, among other things, that Visa and Mastercard -- together with all banks that issue Visa or Mastercard payment cards, all banks that process payments on those cards, and all merchants accepting such cards -- engaged in a "price-fixing conspiracy" in which they "fixed and stabilized" interchange fees and that cardholders paid those fees as direct and indirect purchasers. The Plaintiffs assert violations of the California Cartwright Act, Cal. Business and Professions Code Sections 16700 et seq., as well as the California Unfair Competition Law. The Defendants are financial services company in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert J. Vizas, Esq. Sharon D. Mayo, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Telephone: (415) 471-3100 Facsimile: (415) 471-3400 E-mail: robert.vizas@arnoldporter.com sharon.mayo@arnoldporter.com - and - Matthew A. Eisenstein, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave, Nw Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-6606 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: matthew.eisenstein@apks.com MDL 2924: Multi-Plaintiff Complaints in Zantac Liability Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2924, No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denies the Plaintiffs' Expedited Motions to Permit Multi-Plaintiff Complaints for Registry Claimants. The Motion has been fully briefed, and Judge Rosenberg heard oral argument on the Motion on Jan. 12, 2023. At oral argument, he inquired about the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the Plaintiffs' Motion, a subject that was not addressed in the parties' briefing; he invited additional motion practice that addressed his questions about the application of the Federal Rules to the Motion. Soon thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion at docket entry 6220. The Renewed Motion has also been fully briefed. In the interest of giving the Plaintiffs the maximum amount of notice possible, Judge Rosenberg previously informed the Plaintiffs via paperless order of his denial of both Motions and of his intent to enter a formal, written order explaining its decision. This is that Order. The Plaintiffs filed their Motions on behalf of approximately 58,000 Claimants in an MDL Registry. That Registry is a database of claims. Each Claimant is an individual who has registered a claim in the Registry, and, while the claim was registered, by agreement of the parties the claim was tolled for statute of limitations purposes. Each Claimant has certified under penalty of estoppel that the Claimants' claim will be filed, if it is ever filed, in federal court, not state court. The question before the Court is how the Claimants must file their claims. The operative answer is found in Pretrial Order 31, page 4, which states that any "Plaintiff who files directly in MDL No. 2924 must file his or her complaint as a Short Form Complaint in a new case, which will be the Plaintiff's member case." The Short Form Complaint is a template complaint attached to the Plaintiffs' operative master pleadings, and it is this template that each new Plaintiff must complete. Additionally, no multi-plaintiff complaints are permitted under Pretrial Order 31. Instead, each Plaintiff must have an individual complaint on file. Judge Rosenberg states that the effect of Pretrial Order 31 is to stage the Plaintiffs' claims for eventual remand to their home district. Each Short Form Complaint contains the district to which the Plaintiff must eventually be remanded. Each Short Form Complaint is an operative pleading, and it contains all of the Plaintiffs' claims for which, eventually, the Plaintiff must prove individual causation. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants jointly drafted and agreed to the terms of Pretrial Order 31, and the Court entered the Pretrial Order at the parties' request in August of 2020. The Claimants also agreed to the terms of Pretrial Order 31 when they recorded their claims in the Registry. Since August 2020, in full compliance with the terms of Pretrial Order 31, approximately 2,500 Plaintiffs have filed individual cases in the MDL with individual Short Form Complaints. On Dec. 6, 2022, the Court entered its Daubert ruling on general causation in favor of the Defendants. As a result of that ruling, the Registry was set to expire one month later, on Jan. 5, 2023, and it became necessary for the Claimants in the Registry to file a case in federal court, if they wanted to appeal the Court's ruling and avoid the running of the statute of limitations on their claims. For the first time, on Dec. 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs objected to the terms of Pretrial Order 31, calling its terms "perverse." They requested that the Court modifies the terms of Pretrial Order 31 to permit the Registry Claimants to file one multi-plaintiff complaint per law firm. Because approximately 330 law firms represent the Claimants, the Plaintiffs' request was for 330 cases to be filed in lieu of over 58,000 individual cases. Judge Rosenberg denies the Plaintiffs' request on four grounds: (A) the Plaintiffs' request does not satisfy the requirements for joinder of claims under Rule 20(a); (B) even if the Plaintiffs' request satisfies Rule 20(a), the Court would still sever the multi-plaintiff complaints; (C) the Plaintiffs have provided no persuasive or analogous case law in support of their request in their Renewed Motion; and (D) the Plaintiffs and the Claimants previously agreed to file individual complaints. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rosenberg denies the Plaintiff's Motions to Permit Multi-Plaintiff Complaints. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3tbhc5hb from Leagle.com. MDL 3055: Gutierrez Privacy Suit Transferred to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled TAMMY GUTIERREZ, an individual, and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-05719, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00789 to the proceeding. The case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3055, IN RE: SAMSUNG CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. This is a class action for damages against Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. due to its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing Plaintiff's sensitive personal information including without limitation, unencrypted and unredacted name, contact and demographic information, and date of birth as a result of the data breach. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures electronic products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason Jonathan Kim, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 MDL 3055: Seirafi Privacy Suit Transferred to D.N.J. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled NAEEM SEIRAFI and SHELBY HOLTZCLAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-05176, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00787 to the proceeding. The case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3055, IN RE: SAMSUNG CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. This is a class action for damages against Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. due to its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing Plaintiff's sensitive personal information including without limitation, unencrypted and unredacted name, contact and demographic information, and date of birth as a result of the data breach. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures electronic products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 E-mail: amortimer@huntonAK.com MICHAELS STORES: Crawford Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CURTIS CRAWFORD, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAELS STORES PROCUREMENT COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010787, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00123 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Crawford is a former non-exempt employee at a Michaels distribution center in California who alleges that Michaels failed to pay him all of his minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide proper meal and rest breaks, failed to timely pay all wages owed upon termination, failed to timely pay all wages owed during employment, failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to pay sick wages, failed to pay reporting time pay, failed to reimburse necessary business expenses, violated California Labor Code section 221, and engaged in unfair competition. Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc. retails art and craft products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Michelle L. Lappen, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com mlappen@proskauer.com MICROSOFT CORP: Beldock ERISA Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTIN BELDOCK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. C22-1082JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiffs' complaint with leave to amend. Before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Microsoft, the Board of Trustees of Microsoft, and the 401(k) Administrative Committee of the Microsoft Corporation Savings Plus 401(k) Plan. Plaintiffs Justin Beldock, Gordon Broward, and Shaadi Nezami, who bring the action on behalf of themselves, the Plan, and a proposed class, oppose the motion. The Court heard oral argument on the motion on Jan. 30, 2023. The Plan is a defined contribution plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). It is a participant-driven 401(k) plan, meaning that participants direct the investment of their contributions into the investment options offered by the Plan. Since at least December 31, 2009, the Plan has offered participants a suite of 10 BlackRock LifePath Index target date funds (the "BlackRock TDFs"). The Defendants designated the BlackRock TDFs as the Plan's Qualified Default Investment Alternative, into which a participant's contributions are invested if the participant does not otherwise indicate where their assets should be allocated. In December 2020, about 24% of the Plan's assets were invested in the BlackRock TDFs. As of late 2021, the BlackRock TDFs were the third largest target date suite by market share. The Plaintiffs assert that the BlackRock TDFs are significantly worse performing than many of the mutual fund alternatives offered by TDF providers and, throughout the Class Period, could not have supported an expectation by prudent fiduciaries that their retention in the Plan was justifiable. They allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by employing a "fundamentally irrational decision-making process" in adding and retaining the BlackRock TDFs. They do not, however, allege any specific facts regarding that decision-making process. Instead, the Plaintiffs compare the BlackRock TDFs' returns over time to the returns realized by four of the other top-six largest TDF suites (the "Comparator TDFs") and ask the court to infer, based on the BlackRock TDFs' alleged underperformance, that the Defendants acted imprudently in retaining the BlackRock TDFs in the Plan. They provide nine pages of tables showing how the three- and five-year annualized returns for the BlackRock TDFs ranked against the Comparator TDFs at the end of each quarter since the beginning of the class period in August 2016. As the Defendants point out, there are some key differences between the BlackRock TDFs and the Comparator TDFs. The Plaintiffs, who are former employees of Microsoft and former participants in the Plan, filed the proposed class action on Aug. 1, 2022. All three Plaintiffs were invested in different vintages of the BlackRock TDF suite: Mr. Beldock maintained an investment in the BlackRock Retirement TDF; Mr. Gordon in the BlackRock 2020 TDF; and Mr. Nezami in the BlackRock 2030 TDF. They allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan and Plan participants under ERISA by selecting and retaining the BlackRock TDFs as investment options in the Plan. They also allege claims under ERISA for failure to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciary breaches, as well as a claim in the alternative for knowing breaches of trust based on the Defendants' decisions to select and retain the BlackRock TDFs. The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' acts violated ERISA; a permanent injunction against the Defendants prohibiting the practices described in the complaint and requiring them to act in the best interests of the Plan and its participants; equitable, legal, or remedial relief for all losses and/or compensatory damages; and attorneys' fees, costs, and recoverable expenses. The parties agreed on an extended briefing schedule for the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Briefing was complete on Dec. 16, 2022. The Defendants argue that (1) Mr. Beldock lacks standing to act as a plaintiff in this case because he did not suffer an injury cognizable under Article III, and (2) none of the three Plaintiffs has standing to pursue prospective injunctive relief on behalf of the Plan and the proposed class because any such relief would not benefit them. Judge Robart agrees with the Defendants. He concludes that Mr. Beldock has not plausibly alleged that he has Article III standing to pursue the claims alleged. He finds that (i) Mr. Beldock does not prove that he suffered the type of concrete and particularized injury necessary for Article III standing; (ii) the Plaintiffs do not explain how any alleged failure to do so caused Mr. Beldock a concrete and particularized injury that could be redressed by a favorable decision; and (iii) Plaintiffs themselves pointed out that the BlackRock Retirement TDF in which Mr. Beldock invested performed better than the retirement vintages offered by the Comparator TDFs. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Beldock from the lawsuit for lack of standing is granted. Judge Robart also concludes that none of the Plaintiffs plausibly alleges that he is likely to suffer future injury if the Court does not enjoin the conduct challenged in the complaint. None of the three Plaintiffs alleges that he is likely to become reemployed by Microsoft and to participate again in the Plan. Therefore, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for prospective injunctive relief is granted. The Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that they do not allege that the Defendants failed to act in accordance with the documents governing the Plan. Accordingly, Judge Robart grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(D) and turns to the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for breaches of the duties of prudence and loyalty. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence, Judge Robart grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss that claim. Because the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty under ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(A), the Defendants' motion to dismiss this claim is also granted. And, because the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims is granted, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for failure to monitor, co-fiduciary breaches, and knowing breaches of trust is granted as well. Finally, Judge Robart grants the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their complaint to address the deficiencies identified in his Order. The Plaintiffs will file their amended complaint. If they fail to timely file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss the matter with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/38swact9 from Leagle.com. MR. SOS: Angeles Sues Over Installers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER ANGELES and ANTHONY FORGIONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MR. SOS LLC, ALEX KOGAN, and BRIAN ZILBER, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00807 (D.N.J., Feb. 10, 2023) seeks relief from the Defendants' (i) unlawful actions, which relief includes compensation for unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions, and (2) failure to promptly pay wages. The Plaintiffs further seek liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, statutory damages for wage notice and pay statement violations, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs filed the complaint over the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages; failure to promptly pay wages; failure to keep and maintain employee payroll records; intentional taking of unlawful deductions; failure to provide spread-of-hours pay; and failure to furnish wage notices compliant. The Plaintiffs further seek to recover damages against Defendants to redress the injuries they suffered as a result of being retaliated against by Defendants for complaining of and opposing Defendants' unlawful pay practices. Plaintiffs Angeles and Forgione were employed by Mr. SOS as installers from December 1, 2020 until January 31, 2022 and from January 2, 2021 until February 10, 2022, respectively. Mr. SOS operates under the name of "Mr. SOS Installs" as a provider of commercial and residential appliance installation, electrician, handyman, painting, and plumbing services to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Ames, Esq. AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 825-1400 Facsimile: (212) 825-1440 E-mail: justin@akinlaws.com MVI INC: Caputo Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ KATHLEEN CAPUTO and NATALIE ROMEO, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. MVI, INC. 401(k) PLAN; MVI, INC.; MVI HOME CARE, INC.; and KEVIN MCGUIRE, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00265-SL (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Wage Laws; for unjust enrichment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; and for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Members have been damaged by the Wage Defendants' willful refusal to pay at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked. As a result of the Wage Defendants' FLSA violations, Named Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Members are entitled to damages, including, but not limited to, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. Named Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves and all current and former participants in the defined contribution plan MVI, Inc. 401(k) Plan. The Plaintiffs seek delinquent contributions and deductions pursuant to the terms of the governing plan documents and relevant regulations; liquidated damages and interest attributable to such delinquent contributions; and relief arising from any breach of fiduciary duties. They also seek an order from the Court enjoining the ERISA Defendants from further breaching the terms of the plan documents and violating ERISA and its associated regulations, as well as an order enforcing the terms of the plan documents and ERISA. Plaintiffs Caputo and Romeo were formerly employed by the Wage Defendants as physical therapists, and are "participants" in the MVI, Inc. 401(k) Plan. MVI, Inc. 401(k) Plan is a "defined contribution plan" under 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(34) that maintains its principal place of business in Mahoning County, Ohio. MVI, Inc. is a corporation for profit registered to do business in the State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jacob A. Mikalov, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jmikalov@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Joseph J. Guarino III, Esq. MANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., L.P.A. 2460 Fairmount Blvd., Suite 314 Cleveland, OH 44106 Telephone: (216) 397-5844 Facsimile: (216) 397-5845 E-mail: jguarino@bmanganolaw.com NELNET SERVICING: Eichenblatt Consolidated with Data Security Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eichenblatt v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case 4:22-cv-03227 (D. Neb), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Eichenblatt suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lxu89x at no extra charge.[CC] NELNET SERVICING: Freeland Consolidated with Data Security Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Freeland v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03211 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Freeland suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YJZN5J at no extra charge.[CC] NELNET SERVICING: Freeman Consolidated with Data Security Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Freeman, et al., v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03197 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Freeman suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IlLS0g at no extra charge.[CC] NELNET SERVICING: Gamen Consolidated with Data Security Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gamen v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03209 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Gamen suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. NELNET SERVICING: Hegarty Consolidated with Data Security Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hegarty v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03186 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Sayers suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IjC72I at no extra charge.[CC] NELNET SERVICING: Herrick Consolidated with Data Security Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Herrick v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03181 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Herrick suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Yp3QVm at no extra charge.[CC] NELNET SERVICING: Scott Consolidated with Data Security Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott, et al., v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03259 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Scott suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K4bNLw at no extra charge.[CC] NELNET SERVICING: Simmons Consolidated with Data Security Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Simmons v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03194 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that: 1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is cancelled. 2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186; Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193; Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203; Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227; Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413. 3) As to the motions to appoint counsel: a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted. (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the designated as a "Member Case." b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184), and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied. c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied. 4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a consolidated amended complaint: a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March 3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall so state. b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is filed: i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion; and ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named in the proposed consolidated amended complaint, it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs' motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims against it until the claims against Nelnet Servicing, LLC are resolved. c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. 5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading" text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed, the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are instructed to file all further documents (except as described below in subsections a) and b) of this paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items related to service of process; or to file notices of appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error, and therefore these documents must be separately filed in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and defense counsel may either file the document (e.g., Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman and ask the court to then file it in all member cases. b) If a party believes that a document in addition to those described in subparagraph a) above should not be filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party must move for permission to file the document in a limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text feature. The Simmons suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET SERVICING, LLC. Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in other districts have now been transferred to this district and each of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as "related." Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases are currently pending. The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions will be canceled. On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub & Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class. Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IgXFft at no extra charge.[CC] NFL PLAYER: Faces Alford Suit Over Wrongful Denial of Benefits -------------------------------------------------------------- JASON ALFORD, DANIEL LOPER, WILLIS MCGAHEE, MICHAEL MCKENZIE, JAMIZE OLAWALE, ALEX PARSONS, ERIC SMITH, CHARLES SIMS, JOEY THOMAS, and LANCE ZENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY & SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN; THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY & NEUROCOGNITIVE BENEFIT PLAN; THE BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN; THE DISABILITY BOARD OF THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY & NEUROCOGNITIVE BENEFIT PLAN; DENNIS CURRAN; JACOB FRANK; BELINDA LERNER; SAM MCCULLUM; ROBERT SMITH; JEFF VAN NOTE; and ROGER GOODELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00358-BPG (D. Md., Feb. 9, 2023) is a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act seeking redress for the Defendants' wrongful denial of benefits, the denial of statutorily mandated full and fair review of benefit denials, violations of plan terms or governing regulations, and breaches of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiffs, who are former National Football League football players, bring this action against the NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan and NFL Player Disability & Neurocognitive Benefit Plan and its fiduciaries, including, but not limited to, the Plan's Administrator to recover benefits due under the terms of the Plan, to enforce their rights under the terms of the Plan, to clarify their rights under the terms of the Plan, to enjoin acts and practices that violate the terms of the Plan or ERISA, and, separately "to obtain other appropriate equitable relief" including, but not limited to, removal of the fiduciary, restitution, equitable surcharge, and other relief in connection with Defendants' repeated, willful, and systematic pattern of breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty through affirmative misrepresentations, hostile and adversarial positions, bad faith, active concealment, and by otherwise failing to discharge their duties solely and exclusively in the interest of disabled retired NFL Players and their beneficiaries. The complaint alleges that the Defendants wrongfully denied benefits and abused their discretion when they unreasonably failed to consider that Players may be Total and Permanent disabled from the cumulative impact and combined effects of all of a claimant's impairments, rather than compartmentalizing and considering each impairment or type of impairment only "in silo." The Defendants have unreasonably denied benefits when they failed to exercise their discretion by defaulting to their own biased physicians. They have simply rubber-stamped the opinions of their retained, biased physicians, says the suit. The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan and NFL Player Disability & Neurocognitive Benefits Plan are employee welfare benefit plans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com dkekatos@seegereiss.com - and - Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. D. Nicole Guntner, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS, & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: BAylstock@awkolaw.com DKreis@awkolaw.com NGuntner@awkolaw.com - and - Samuel L. Katz, Esq. Julia M. Damron, Esq. ATHLAW LLP 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (818) 454-3652 E-mail: samkatz@athlawllp.com julia@athlawllp.com - and - Robert K. Scott, Esq. Gerry H. Goldsholle, Esq. ADVOCATE LAW GROUP P.C. 2330 Marinship Way, Suite 260 Sausalito, CA 94965 Telephone: (949) 753-4950 E-mail: bob@advocatelawgroup.com gerry@advocatelawgroup.com NJ NAWECH: Da Silva Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case, PAULO CESAR DA SILVA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NJ NAWECH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC, AMARU SAVIO NAWECH ANKUASH, and VANHORST GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00097 (D.N.J., January 9, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker. According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly scheduled the Plaintiff and other similarly situated construction workers to work more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants did not compensate them for all hours they have worked. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants allegedly failed to keep accurate and sufficient time records. In addition, the Defendants failed to post and/or keep posted a notice explaining the overtime pay rights, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated construction workers, against the Defendants seeking to recover all unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs and expert fees, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper. The Corporate Defendants operate a commercial construction and general contracting business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. Julie Salwen, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 110 State Highway 35, Suite 10 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Tel: (718) 799-9111 E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com OK FOODS: Coffey Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- CLARISSA COFFEY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Clarissa Coffey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OK Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02200-PKH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The case arises from a breach of OK Foods' employee data. This breach, which occurred in April 2020, allowed an unknown third party to access employee data including names and Social Security Numbers. An outside cybersecurity firm investigated the data breach, and in April 2021, OK Foods notified current and former employees whose personal information had been exposed. As of the date of OK Foods' notice, no personal information had been misused following the data breach. OK Foods provided affected employees with a free, one-year Experian IdentityWorks membership. Ms. Coffey is one of the affected former employees. On June 2, 2021, Landon Johnson sued OK Foods in the Western District of Oklahoma. The complaint asserted claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and included a class action allegation. Ms. Coffey joined the case in an amended complaint filed July 29, 2021. One day later, Mr. Johnson voluntarily dismissed his claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Six months later and after briefing, the Oklahoma district court transferred the case to the District Court of Western District of Arkansas under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because Mr. Johnson had been the only party who was a citizen of Oklahoma and Ms. Coffey could not afford to appear in Oklahoma. After the transfer, the Court denied OK Foods' motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. At that time, it concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed as to the formation of the arbitration agreement because OK Foods did not present the exact materials Ms. Coffey saw while applying, and Ms. Coffey stated she did not see the arbitration agreement. The Court bifurcated the case, setting a first jury trial "to determine whether the parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement." Following additional time for discovery, which included the depositions of Ms. Coffey and Gary Potts, director of Human Resources at OK Foods, the Defendant moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether a binding arbitration agreement exists. Ms. Coffey argued that the parties lacked mutual agreement to contract and the factual context showed OK Foods disclaimed forming a contract. On Jan. 6, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment through an Order entered by Judge P. K. Holmes III. Judge Holmes opined that Ms. Coffey's arguments only provide conjecture, speculation, or fantasy. Such arguments are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Ms. Coffey cannot point to any record evidence that shows OK Foods forged her signature. Based on the record evidence, specifically the undisputed evidence about the SuccessFactors logs and electronic signatures, no reasonable juror could conclude that OK Foods forged Ms. Coffey's signature. And no reasonable juror could conclude that Ms. Coffey did not electronically sign the arbitration agreement based on the same undisputed evidence. Therefore, Judge Holmes concluded that the parties signed a binding arbitration agreement. The case was, therefore, dismissed without prejudice. Arbitration will resolve the entire dispute, ruled the Court. The appellate case is captioned Clarissa Coffey v. OK Foods, Case No. 23-2244, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on February 7, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Clarissa Coffey brief is due on March 20, 2023; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CLARISSA COFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: D. Colby Addison, Esq. Tyler James Bean, Esq. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 - and - Philip Daniel Holland, Esq. Scott E. Poynter, Esq. POYNTER LAW GROUP Suite 201 407 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 812-3943 Defendant-Appellee OK FOODS, INC. is represented by: Karl Jon Breyer, Esq. KUTAK & ROCK Suite 800, Two Pershing Square 2300 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 960-0090 - and - Frederick H. Davis, Esq. KUTAK & ROCK Suite 2000 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975-3000 - and - Aaron Myers, Esq. KUTAK & ROCK Suite 1750, U.S. Bank Plaza South 220 S. Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 334-5000 PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Removal of Docket Entry Ordered in Hayden ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PAUL HAYDEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00367-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, directs the Court Clerk to remove ECF No. 249 from the case docket. Lead Plaintiff Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association filed the administrative motion to remove the document from the docket. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ttrm3fv from Leagle.com. Nicole Lavallee -- nlavallee@bermantabacco.com -- Daniel E. Barenbaum -- dbarenbaum@bermantabacco.com -- Jeffrey V. Rocha -- jrocha@bermantabacco.com -- BERMAN TABACCO, Francisco, CA, Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association and Lead Counsel for the Class. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Ager Sues Over Illegal Billing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- KELLY AGER, f/k/a KELLY WALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, a foreign for-profit corporation, MERIDIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. a foreign for-profit corporation, and CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, a foreign forprofit corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-00285-SCB-AEP (M.D. Fla., Feb. 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for damages resulting from breach of contract and Defendants' violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff had lab tests performed by Quest. While Plaintiff's insurance covered most of the billed amount for Quest's medical services, it did not cover Quest's services entirely. Consequently, Plaintiff incurred a debt to Quest totaling $702.94. On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff and Quest entered into a payment plan for Plaintiff's consumer debt comprising of nine monthly payments to be deducted automatically from Plaintiff's bank account. By asserting the right to and attempting to collect from Plaintiff and the class the total balance of a debt that was part of a payment plan, Quest claimed, attempted, or threatened to enforce a debt when Quest knew that the debt was not legitimate, and asserted the existence of a legal right when Quest knew that the right did not exist. Specifically, after entering into payment plans with consumers, the Defendant systematically stopped accepting payments from those consumers -- who were current on their bills -- and sent those consumers to collections, says the suit. Quest Diagnostics is a conglomerate comprising clinical laboratories that provide laboratory services to consumers across the United States, Mexico, and Brazil.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Kimberly A. Slaven-Hauth Esq. Gabriel E. Morales, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com kslaven@zpllp.com gmorales@zpllp.com REGAL MEDICAL: Lindsey Sues Over Failure to Protect PII and PHI --------------------------------------------------------------- Alisa Lindsey, an individual, and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation, LAKESIDE MEDICAL ORGANIZATION, A MEDICAL GROUP, INC, a California corporation, ADOC ACQUISITION CO., A MEDICAL GROUP, INC, a California corporation, GREATER COVINA MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV02958 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 9, 2023), is brought under the California Customer Records Act ("CCRA"), Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), as a result of the Defendants grossly negligent and reckless failure to use statutorily required or reasonable, industry cybersecurity measures to protect putative Class Members' Personal Identifying Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI"). On December 1, 2022 cyber criminals infiltrated and accessed the inadequately protected computer systems of Defendants Regal Medical Group, Inc., Lakeside Medical Organization, A Medical Group, Inc., ADOC Acquisition Co., A Medical Group, Inc., Greater Covina Medical Group, Inc., a group of affiliated medical groups located in California. The cyber criminals gained access to Regal's computer systems with the apparent intention of stealing the protected PII and PHI of individuals whose information was stored on Defendants' computer systems (the "Data Breach"). Ultimately, the cyber criminals succeeded in stealing the sensitive PII and PHI of 3,300,638 of those individuals ("Breach Victims" or "Class Members"). In short, thanks to Defendants' gross negligence and failure to adequately protect the Breach Victims' PII and PHI, cyber criminals were able to steal everything they could possibly need to commit nearly every conceivable form of identity theft and medical identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of millions of individuals. The Defendants' misconduct--failing to timely implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their computer systems and Plaintiff's and Brach Victim's PII and PHI were protected, failing to timely detect the breach, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the breach, failing to disclose the material facts that they did not have adequate computer systems and security practices to safeguard the PII and PHI, failing to honor their repeated promises and representations to protect Plaintiff's and Breach Victims' PII and PHI, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach--caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and Breach Victims. Now that their PII and PHI has been released into the criminal cyber domains, the Plaintiff and all Breach Victims are at imminent risk of identity theft and medical identity theft. This risk will continue to exist for years to come, as Plaintiff and Breach Victims must spend their time being extra vigilant, due to Defendants' failures, to try to prevent being victimized for the rest of their lives, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided her PII and PHI, as was required of her in order to obtain the medical services she received from Regal. The Defendants are a network of medical groups with hundreds of healthcare providers locations throughout southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com RENEOTECH INC: Nemirovsky Sues Over Deceptive Advertising --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Nemirovsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reneotech, Inc., Case No. 151267/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 8, 2023), is brought seeking to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the marketing and sales of Defendant's EcoRaider / EcoVenger products throughout the state of New York and throughout the country. The EcoRaider / EcoVenger products include the following (the "Products"): EcoRaider / EcoVenger Bed Bug Killer; EcoRaider / EcoVenger Mosquito-Go; EcoRaider / EcoVenger Ant & Crawling Insect Killer. The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers, i.e., that its Products are "Natural;" however, Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients. The Plaintiff and relied on the Defendant's misrepresentations that the Products are "Natural" when purchasing the Products. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based upon their "Natural" representation. Given that the Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based on the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid. The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia, New York General Business Law. Defendant breached and continues to breach its warranties regarding the Products. Had the Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions, the Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have been willing to pay the same amount for the Products they purchased, and, consequently, Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have been willing to purchase the Products, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product during the Class Period. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes the Products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq THE SULTZER LAW GROUP 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com RING LLC: Cody Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ring LLC, et al. The case is styled as Annette Cody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ring LLC, Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00562 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Ring LLC -- https://ring.com/ -- is a home security and smart home company owned by Amazon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com ROADSAFE TRAFFIC: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roadsafe Traffic Systems, Inc., et al. case is styled as Adriana Magdalena Ramos, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Roadsafe Traffic Systems, Inc., Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 34-2023-00334458-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 8, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." RoadSafe Traffic Systems -- https://www.roadsafetraffic.com/ -- is a provider of comprehensive roadway safety services, including traffic control, pavement marking, and specialty product distribution, serving customers in public and private end markets across over 50 branch locations throughout the U.S. Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 ROBERT HALF: Bid for Summary Judgment in Magallon FCRA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BONNIE MAGALLON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:13-cv-01478-AA (D. Or.), Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division, denies the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. In this consumer class action, class representative Magallon alleges that the Defendant violated provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. The action stems from the Defendant's use of a background report in deciding to reject the Plaintiff's employment application. The Defendant, a professional staffing service company, rejected the Plaintiff's application allegedly based on her past misdemeanor conviction without providing to her the "pre-adverse action notice" required under FCRA. The Plaintiff brought the action alleging that the Defendant used a consumer report for employment purposes and took adverse action against her, based in whole or in part on the consumer report, without providing the required information under FCRA. Further, she alleges that doing so constitutes a willful violation of FCRA. As such, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant is liable Under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n, for its failure to comply with Section 1681b(b)(3)(A), in an amount equal to the sum of (1) damages not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation, (2) punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, (3) attorney fees, and (4) costs. Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. It asserts that (1) the Plaintiff lacks standing; (2) its policies were compliant with FCRA, and that it adhered to them during the class period; and (3) the Plaintiff's allegations do not support her claim for statutory damages. Initially, Judge Aiken opines that the Plaintiff satisfactorily alleges particularized injury, where she asserts a personal injury -- that the Defendant violated her right to information under FCRA when it did not send her the pre-adverse action package, and that the violation caused her loss of a job opportunity. She has also alleged concrete injuries where Defendant took adverse employment action without providing the information guaranteed by Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) and thus was deprived of the opportunity to correct the accuracy or completeness of her consumer report. And, her allegations, declarations, and affidavits establish the other necessary elements of standing: that her injury is fairly traceable to Defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Next, Judge Aiken holds that the Plaintiff's claim is not absent of evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer that the Defendant took adverse action before sending the required information. She finds that she cannot conclude that the Plaintiff's claim is "absent" of evidence, and a reasonable factfinder could find that the "not placeable" determination is a final decision and therefore an adverse action within the meaning of the FCRA. Lastly, Judge Aiken rules that the Plaintiff presented evidence that the Defendant's employee testified that she was unaware of whether the Defendant's policies required her to send the candidate a copy of the background report and that her training did not involve sending letters regarding the results of background checks. Another employee testified that she supervises other employees who handle the pre-adverse notice process and that she was unaware whether Defendant's policies required employees to send applicants a pre-adverse action letter after legal department reviews their background check results. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim is not absent of evidence and therefore denies the motion on this issue. For these reasons, Judge Aiken denies the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9c5ber from Leagle.com. ROLL & HILL: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roll & Hill, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Roll & Hill, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00903 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Roll & Hill -- https://www.rollandhill.com/ -- is a design-minded furniture and lighting company based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com S.C. JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in 3rd Amended Rosenberg Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OWEN ROSENBERG, CARRIE McDOUGLE, CHRIS LEMKE, and ANGELA MILLER, Plaintiffs v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-869-JPS (E.D. Wis.), Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. On June 8, 2020, Rosenberg filed the lawsuit, pleading class allegations based on labeling claims of non-toxicity on Windex products. On Sept. 28, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On Oct. 19, 2020, Rosenberg filed an amended complaint, which added Plaintiffs Carrie McDougle, Chris Lemke, and Angela Miller. The Plaintiffs are three individuals who bought certain Windex "Non-Toxic Formula" products, believing such purchases would "avoid harm caused by harsh chemicals." The products in question are Windex Original Glass Cleaner, Windex Multi-Surface Cleaner, Windex Vinegar Cleaner, and Windex Crystal Rain (Ammonia-Free). Each Product boasts a "non-toxic formula." On Nov. 16, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Aug. 2, 2021, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint as moot, granted in part the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and afforded the Plaintiffs leave to amend the amended complaint. On Aug. 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. On Sept. 7, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and a motion to stay. The motion to stay was premised on a parallel class action that had been filed in California state court on July 15, 2020, following the commencement of this action: Clark v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., No. RG20067897 (Cal. Super. Ct.) (the "Clark Action"). On Oct. 18, 2021, the Court granted the motion to stay. It noted that the crux of the Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion for a stay was that the Clark settlement is unfair and constituted a "reverse auction." However, it explained that another party had raised this concern before the California state court, the Clark Action received preliminary approval, and that "the issue of whether to approve a potentially reverse-auctioned settlement was not before this Court; that is something for the California state court to determine. If the California state court is satisfied with the settlement, then the class claims raised in this litigation may well be foreclosed. On Feb. 28, 2022, the Court lifted the stay following the parties' notification that the California state court had granted final approval of a class settlement in the Clark Action. Thereafter, in accordance with the Court's protocols (as it presumably followed a meet-and-confer), the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On May 13, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, or in the alternative to strike the class allegations, on the basis of the settlement in the Clark Action. The Plaintiffs contend that in spite of the labeling, the Products contain, in varying combinations, ingredients that are harmful to humans, animals, and/or the environment. They list which of the Products contain which ingredients and explain the harm that they attribute to each listed ingredient. According to them, the marketing of the Products as 'non-toxic' has a material bearing on price and consumer acceptance of the Products because consumers are willing to pay more for such Products; in other words, as a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Products are sold at a premium price. The Plaintiffs allege that had they known the truth, they would not have bought the Products or would have paid less for them. The Plaintiffs plead claims (1) under the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"), which they assert applies to a Class of purchasers of the Defendant's products bearing the Non-Toxic label, both within and outside of Wisconsin, who have been harmed as a result, given that its Non-Toxic marketing program was devised, implemented and directed from its headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin, and (2) for unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs in the Clark Action also alleged that the non-toxic label on the Products is false and misleading because the Products contain ingredients harmful to people, pets, and the environment, and that consumers paid a premium due to the non-toxic labels. The settlement class in the Clark Action was defined as "All persons that, during the Class Period, both resided in the United States and purchased in the United States any Product for personal and household use and not for resale. The class period is the time period from the date when SC Johnson initially labeled the Products as non-toxic to July 9, 2021. The Clark Action settlement was preliminarily approved on July 9, 2021, and the Clark court granted final approval and certified the settlement class on Feb. 14, 2022. The release in the Clark Action binds the entire class, except for "twelve people who have opted out of the class and will not be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement." The three remaining named Plaintiffs in the instant action are among the twelve people who opted out of the Clark Action settlement. The Defendant moves to dismiss the third amended complaint or, in the alternative to strike the class allegations, on multiple grounds. Those grounds can be boiled down to assertions that (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs' collateral attack of the Clark Action settlement and, even if it had jurisdiction, a collateral attack is not viable; (2) the putative class claims should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs relinquished their ability to proceed as a class by opting out of the Clark Action settlement; (3) the putative class claims should be dismissed because the putative class members are barred from pursuing their claims either due to res judicata or because they released their claims in the Clark Action settlement; (4) the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; and (5) the Plaintiffs' individual claims are not adequately pleaded. Judge Stadtmueller concludes that those who opted out of the Clark Action settlement, as well as those who purchased the Products following July 9, 2021, may still be able to proceed in some fashion, either individually or as a class. He will not make any determinations on these questions at the motion to dismiss stage, because discovery has not been completed, and the issue of class certification is not now before the Court. At this juncture, Judge Stadtmueller has definitively concluded that the Clark Action class members who did not opt out of the Clark Action are precluded from participating in this action and are not putative class members as to any purchases that took place prior to July 9, 2021. This determination is based upon his conclusion that the Clark Action settlement has preclusive effect and meets the federal procedural due process requirements, such that any collateral attack must be denied. But that is all the Court conclusively decides today, until discovery and a motion for class certification are completed. For these reasons, Judge Stadtmueller grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss in accordance with the terms of his Order. The Plaintiffs must file their amended complaint in line with the Court's directives within 14 days of his Order. The Court will enter its Pretrial Order immediately following entry of the Order. The parties are expected to carefully review the Court's protocols therein, and should note that extensions of time will not be looked upon favorably. Judge Stadtmueller adopts the Plaintiffs' notice of voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff Owen Rosenberg; dismisses Rosenberg's claims against the Defendant without prejudice; and dismisses Rosenberg from the action. He dismisses the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ncujwxh from Leagle.com. SACRAMENTO BEHAVIORAL: Tejeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento Behavioral Healthcare Hospital LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jonathan Tejeda, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Sacramento Behavioral Healthcare Hospital LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2023-00334489-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 9, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Sacramento Behavioral Healthcare Hospital -- https://norcalbehavioral.com/sacramento-location/ -- offers a wide array of individualized mental health treatment services for teens, adults, and senior adults.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-952-0354 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com SAFE CATCH INC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safe Catch, Inc. The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Safe Catch, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01104 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Safe Catch -- https://safecatch.com/ -- is a brand with the technology to assure purity in every fish.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santa Clara University. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Santa Clara University, Case No. 1:23-cv-01133 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Santa Clara University -- https://www.scu.edu/ -- is a private Jesuit university in Santa Clara, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal SEA NEW YORK: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sea New York, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sea New York, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01040 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sea -- https://sea-ny.com/ -- is a chic fashion label created by childhood friends Sean Monahan and Monica Paolini.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seattle University. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Seattle University, Case No. 1:23-cv-01055 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Seattle University -- https://www.seattleu.edu/ -- is a modern, progressive, and global Jesuit Catholic university in the heart of tech-heavy Seattle's eclectic Capitol Hill neighborhood.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal SET AND SERVICE RESOURCES: Parvin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Set and Service Resources, LLC. The case is styled as Brenda Parvin, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Set and Service Resources, LLC, Case No. S-CV-0049910 (Cal. Super. Ct., Placer Cty., Feb. 9, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Set and Service Resources, LLC -- https://www.sasrlink.com/ -- provides employment services. The Company offers temporary labor and permanent placement, interviewing, background check, drug screening, and workers' compensation services.[BN] SKECHERS USA: Garcia Sues to Recover Delinquent Wage Payments ------------------------------------------------------------- Ronaldo Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SKECHERS USA RETAIL, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01055 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2023), is brought pursuant to New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual laborers and who were employed at any time by the Defendant. The Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly (every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL. The Defendant has at no time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees who qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in contravention of NYLL which requires that without explicit authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a stockroom associate. SKECHERS USA RETAIL, LLC is a foreign company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 SN SERVICING: Monaco Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Monaco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SN Servicing Corporation, John Does 1-25, Case No. BUR L 1750 22 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00724-CPO-MJS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. SN Servicing Corporation (SNSC) -- https://www.snsc.com/ -- delivers quick and flexible mortgage loan servicing solutions for owners of loans and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com The Defendants are represented by: Ryan L. Di Clemente, Esq. SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP 650 College Road East, Suite 4000 Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (609) 452-5057 Fax: (609) 452-6117 Email: ryan.diclemente@saul.com SOHI FELLOW BARBER: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sohi Fellow Barber, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sohi Fellow Barber, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01039 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fellow Barber -- https://www.fellowbarber.com/ -- is a New York-born chain of elevated barbershops.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com STRATFORD UNIVERSITY: Coleman Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Desiree Coleman, individually and on behalf all other similarly situated v. STRATFORD UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00190 (E.D. Va., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the unencrypted and unredacted data of at least 78,692 current and former students, admission applicants, and employees of Stratford University. Prior to and through August 26, 2022, Defendant obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and stored that PII, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network. Stratford University failed to provide timely, accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and Class Members, who are past and present students, employees, and applicants to Stratford University. Plaintiffs' and Class Members' knowledge about the PII lost, as well as precisely what type of information was unencrypted and in the possession of unknown third parties, was unreasonably delayed by Stratford University's failure to warn impacted persons for approximately five-months after first learning of the data breach. The Defendant failed to implement and maintain reasonable data security measures, such as standard encryption or redaction of sensitive data, leading to the theft of the sensitive personal information of Plaintiff and other current and former students, admission applicants, employees of Stratford University, and others who entrusted Defendant with their most sensitive data. Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of herself and Class Members, as well as equitable relief, including, without limitation, injunctive relief designed to protect the sensitive information of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a graduate of Stratford University. Stratford University, Inc., a Virginia corporation, is a private university based in Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Phone: (804) 351-904 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Scott M. Perry, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, P.C. 1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 310 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 291-6666 Facsimile: (703) 563-6692 Email: Scott@bbtrial.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Justin C. Walker, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com jwalker@msdlegal.com SWIFT BEEF: Meza Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FRANCISCO J. MEZA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWIFT BEEF COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2300103, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00236-SSS-SP to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of himself and others allegedly similarly situated, six causes of action under the California Labor Code against Defendant for failure to: (1) pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) permit meal periods; (3) permit rest periods; (4) timely pay earned wages; (5) provide accurate wage statements; and (6) timely pay all earned wages at separation of employment. He also asserts a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. Swift Beef Company processes, prepares, packages and delivers meat products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michele Ballard Miller, Esq. Ethan Chernin, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 393-4000 Facsimile: (310) 394-4700 E-mail: mbmiller@cozen.com echernin@cozen.com - and - Jonathon M. Watson, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 839-3800 Facsimile: (303) 839-3838 E-mail: jmwatson@spencerfane.com SYNGENTA CROP: Hys Farms Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as HYS FARMS, LLC, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOE CO-CONSPIRATOR DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS 1-200, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02229, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on February 8, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00123-TDS-JEP to the proceeding. The Plaintiff in the complaint alleges that farmers in the United States have paid and continue to pay inflated prices for crop protection products due to the unlawful conduct of the Defendants. For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate" programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Syngenta Crop Protection AG was founded in 1758. The company's line of business includes providing commercial physical and biological research and development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com SYNGENTA CROP: Scott Day Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as SCOTT DAY FARMS, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOE CO-CONSPIRATOR DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS 1-200, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02230, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on February 8, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00127-TDS-JEP to the proceeding. The Plaintiff in the complaint alleges that farmers in the United States have paid and continue to pay inflated prices for crop protection products due to the unlawful conduct of the Defendants. For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate" programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Syngenta Crop Protection AG was founded in 1758. The company's line of business includes providing commercial physical and biological research and development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry Stephen McDevitt, Esq. VAN WINKLE BUCK WALL STARNES & DAVIS, P.A. POB 7376 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 Facsimile: (828) 257-2767 E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com - and - Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com TEIJIN AUTOMOTIVE: Hummel Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Hummel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TEIJIN AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-10341-GAD-JJCG (E.D. Mich., Feb. 8, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information of the Defendant's current and former employees and others, including name, address, date of birth, full Social Security number, health insurance policy information (including Subscriber Number and designated insurer) and in a limited number of cases, banking information. Prior to December 1, 2022, the Defendant obtained the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members, including by collecting it directly from the Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant stored the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network. On December 1, Defendant learned of a data breach on its network that occurred on or around December 1, 2022 (the "Data Breach"). Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an unknown actor acquired the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. On December 13, 2022, Defendant began notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. On December 16, 2022, reports began surfacing on the Internet that Defendant had been the subject of a ransomware attack using the "BlackCat/ALPHV" ransomware variant and that information taken during that attack had been listed on the dark web on December 9, 2022. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII that may have been accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized actor included name, address, date of birth, full Social Security number, health insurance policy information (including Subscriber Number and designated insurer) and in a limited number of cases, banking information. The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant has also purposefully maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach and has not informed Plaintiff and Class Members of that information. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, including the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at the time of the Data Breach. The Defendant's is a "manufacturer of highly- engineered products for dynamic market segments, including automotive, heavy truck, marine and recreational vehicles."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael N. Hanna, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Phone: (313) 739-1950 Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Email: rmaxey@ForThePeople.com THRIVE CAUSEMETICS: Blanco Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARIBEL BLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THRIVE CAUSEMETICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-017854, was removed from the Florida Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 11, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-60271 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's single-count complaint seeks relief from Defendant, on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly-situated persons, for allegedly making or causing to be made multiple unlawful "telephonic sales calls" without the "prior express written consent" of Plaintiff and the putative class members, purportedly violating the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Thrive Causemetics, Inc. is a cosmetics company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Josh A. Migdal, Esq. Yaniv Adar, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 374-0440 E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com yaniv@markmigdal.com TIC INTERNATIONAL: Drew Suit Removed to S.D Indiana --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brandon Drew, Jeremy Fater, individually, and on behalf of a class similarly siuated persons v. TIC International Corporation, Case No. 49D01-2301-CT-000583 was removed from the Marion County Superior Court 1, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Feb. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00253-RLY-MPB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. TIC International Corporation -- https://www.tici.com/ -- provides consulting, actuarial and administrative services to those responsible for employee benefits programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amina Thomas, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-6481 Email: athomas@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott B. Cockrum, Esq. LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 2211 Main Street, Suite 3-2A Highland, IN 46322 Phone: (219) 440-0602 Fax: (219) 440-0601 Email: Scott.Cockrum@lewisbrisbois.com TK&K SERVICES: Palma Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TK&K SERVICES, L.L.C. case is styled as Josue Palma, as an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TK&K SERVICES, L.L.C., Case No. BCV-23-100450 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 10, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." TK&K Services -- https://tkandkservices.com/ -- provide quality control and quality assurance and inspection services for a broad range of fuel system-related construction projects.[BN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Enters Final Judgment in Ryan-Blaufuss Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enters Final Judgment in the case, KATHLEEN RYAN-BLAUFUSS, CATHLEEN MILLS and KHEK KUAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants. STEVEN KOSAREFF and LAURA KAKISH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-CV-00201-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.). On this date, the Court entered a Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement. Hence, for the reasons stated in the Court's Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement, judgment is entered in accordance with the Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement and the Action is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Final Judgment will be filed in, and applies to, the Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Final Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/3zzue9z3 from Leagle.com. UNAC INTERNATIONAL: Hernandez Sues Over Misleading Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Bertha Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNAC International, Inc., Case No. 151265/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Feb. 8, 2023), is brought seeking to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the marketing and sales of Defendant's Cosmolive Aloe Vera Natural Soap product throughout the state of New York and throughout the country (the "Product"). The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Product using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers, i.e., that its Product is "Natural;" however, the Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients. The Plaintiff relied on Defendant's misrepresentations that the Product is "Natural" when purchasing the Product. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Product based upon its "Natural" representation. Given that the Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Product based on the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid. The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia, New York General Business Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product during the Class Period. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes the Product throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq THE SULTZER LAW GROUP 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (630) 796-0903 Email: hbryson@milberg.com UNITED STATES: Botello Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA. case is styled as Jeremiah Botello, Brent Chrisholm, Kyle Davis, Billie Endress, Allen Hall, James Holden, Brandi King, Briton Limburg, Lauren Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USA, Case No. BCV-23-100411 (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl., Feb. 8, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Military Pay - Back Pay. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dale F. Saran, Esq. DALE F. SARAN, LLC 19744 W 116th Ter Olathe, KS 66061 Phone: (480) 466-0369 Email: dalesaran@gmail.com UNITED STATES: Dickerson Files Writ of Habeas Corpus ---------------------------------------------------- BILLY RAY DICKERSON filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in his prisoner civil rights case captioned DICKERSON v. USA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00126-TDS-LPA, (M.D.N.C., Feb. 10, 2023). The case is assigned to Chief Judge Thomas D. Schroeder. Petitioner Billy Ray Dickerson, who is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Petersburg, Virginia, appears pro se.[BN] Respondent USA is represented by: Angela Hewlett Miller, Esq. OFFICE OF U. S. ATTORNEY 101 South Edgeworth Street, Fourth Floor Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 333-5351 E-mail: angela.miller@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Reeves Found Not Interested Party in Braswell Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Victor J. Wolski of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denies Walter Reeves' request for notice as an interested party in the case, BRENDA BRASWELL, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 20-359C (Fed. Cl.). On Jan. 30, 2023, the Clerk's office received from Mr. Reeves of Atlanta, Georgia, a document entitled "petition to file motion," asking to be listed as an Interested Party in the case. Although Mr. Reeves does not reference any rule, it appears that he is attempting to invoke Rule 14 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Rule 14 sets the manner and methods by which the Court "on motion or on its own" may formally notify any person with the legal capacity to sue or to be sued who is alleged to have an interest in the subject matter of the suit. Motions for notice must state the person's interest in the pending action. Judge Wolski states that Mr. Reeves is obviously not a party to the case, his document is construed as a request for the Court to provide notice sua sponte. But according to the information in his submission, Mr. Reeves is a mayoral candidate who is involved in labor organizing. Seemingly, he hopes to encourage prison guards and other federal workers to join the putative class action. Nothing in the copious materials that Mr. Reeves has supplied indicates that he is a potential intervenor, owns a property interest at issue, or is at any risk of preclusion. He may be personally concerned about the suit, but he is not legally interested. Therefore, Judge Wolski denies Mr. Reeves' request for notice as an interested party. The Clerk is directed not to file Mr. Reeves's document and to mail the Order to the address that he provided. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrkjbkyw from Leagle.com. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION: Bartley Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- PORTIA BARTLEY, on behalf of the State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION LLC, a New York limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV03041 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to California's Private Attorney General Act to recover civil penalties for Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants created a uniform set of policies, practices and/or procedures concerning, inter alia, hourly and overtime pay, time-keeping practices, meal and rest periods, reimbursement of business expenses and other working conditions that were distributed to, and/or applied to her and other aggrieved employees, and asserts that Defendants uniformly compensated and controlled her wages and other aggrieved employees in a uniform manner. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt Covid testing coordinator, Covid testing assistant, Covid testing consultant and/or similar title(s) from mid-September 2021 through February 17, 2022. Universal Television LLC owns, operates, and manages a television production company.[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 UPROXX LLC: Kuzenski Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII --------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Kuzenski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly, situated v. UPROXX LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00945 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2023), is brought in relation to Defendant disclosing Plaintiff's personally identifiable information ("PII") without Plaintiff's consent in violation of the the Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA"). The Defendant's website, uproxx.com (the "Website"), offers, inter alia, a wide array of prerecorded video content. When the Plaintiff watched videos on Defendant's Website, the Plaintiff's PII was shared with Facebook without notifying the Plaintiff and without his consent. The Defendant violated the VPPA each time it knowingly disclosed the Plaintiff's PII to Facebook without consent. When someone creates a Facebook account, a corresponding Facebook ID ("FID") is also created. FIDs are uniquely associated with particular Facebook accounts, such that an FID can be used to identify and view the associated Facebook profile. When someone becomes a subscriber to Defendant's Website, they receive recurring emails from Defendant with links to articles and videos published to the Website. Defendant monetizes its Website by knowingly collecting and disclosing its subscribers' PII to Facebook, namely data that personally identifies subscribers and the videos they view. The Defendant's Website uses a code analytics tool called "Facebook Pixel," which was implemented at the discretion of Defendant. Facebook Pixel tracks the actions of Website visitors (subscribers), such as the pages a visitor accesses and the content they view. When someone watches a video on Defendant's Website, the video name and the viewer's FID are simultaneously sent to Facebook via Facebook Pixel. When a URL containing a video name/description and an FID are simultaneously disclosed, that information indicates the video material accessed by a specific individual, thus constitutes PII. The Defendant knew that URLs containing video names/descriptions and FIDs are simultaneously disclosed by Facebook Pixel. Defendant also knew that such combined data identifies Website users and the videos they watched. The Defendant did not obtain the consent of Website users to disclose this information, i.e., their PII, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a subscriber of Defendant's website. The Defendant is a media publisher that developed, owns, and/or operates the Website, uproxx.com, which receives thousands of visits per year.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike M. Arias, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: (310) 844-9696 Fax: (310) 861-0168 - and - Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Lance Spitzig, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Phone: (313) 392-0015 Fax: (313) 392-0025 VULCAN MATERIALS: Tejeda Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JUAN MANUEL TEJEDA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY; CALMAT COMPANY; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. SCV-272230, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Sonoma to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00619 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage; (2) failure to authorize or permit meal periods; (3) failure to authorize or permit meal periods; (4) failure to timely pay earned wages; (5) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks at time of separation of employment; and (7) violation of the California Business & Professions Code. Vulcan Materials Company provides construction materials.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Roland Juarez, Esq. Kirk A. Hornbeck, Esq. Veronica A. Torrejon, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 E-mail: rjuarez@HuntonAK.com khornbeck@HuntonAK.com vtorrejon@HuntonAK.com W.K.S. FROSTY: Hofmann Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- John Hofmann, individually and on behalf of those similarly-situated v. W.K.S. FROSTY CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-00023-DJH (W.D. Ky., Feb. 9, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kentucky Wages and Hours Act as a result of the Defendants failure to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation. The Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of overtime compensation by not paying the full overtime rate of pay owed to the employees for their overtime work under the FLSA. Specifically, the Defendant employed the Plaintiff and others to work at Defendant's Wendy's franchise stores. Defendant paid the employees bonuses as part of their compensation, which were based on formulas, including store profitability. The Defendant classified the Plaintiff and the other employees as non-exempt employees and, in addition to the bonuses, also paid employees hourly for their work. However, the Defendant did not pay the correct amount of overtime compensation for employees' overtime work. Instead of paying one and one-half times the actual rate employees were paid (which, when one correctly includes all compensation employees received for work performed, included the bonuses), the Defendant only paid overtime compensation on the lower base hourly rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's Wendy's franchise fast food restaurant/store. W.K.S. Frosty Corporation is a for-profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 213-1303 Email: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com WELLS FARGO: Blessinger Files Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUY BLESSINGER, AUDRA NISKI, NELSON FERREIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Case No. 8:22-cv-01029-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: 1. certifying the "National COBRA Putative Class" defined as: "All participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan from May 2018 through December 23, 2021, who were sent a COBRA notice by the Defendant during the applicable statute of limitations, in the form, because of a "qualifying event" as determined by Defendant's records, who did not elect continuation coverage, excluding individuals who entered into arbitration agreements with Defendant;" 2. appointing Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; 3. appointing undersigned counsel, Luis A. Cabassa, Brandon J. Hill, and Amanda E. Heystek of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., as class counsel; and 4. allowing them to notify the Class members via a Court- approved notice. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40TdFwu at no extra charge.[CC] 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) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com WELLS FARGO: Case Management Plan & Scheduling Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LANNING and MARCIA FRANCIS, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-02055-GBD-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered an order on second amended civil case management plan and schedule: 1. Discovery relating to the merits Nov. 3, 2023 of any named plaintiff's claims and discovery relevant to proving the elements of Rule 23 shall be commenced in time to be completed by: 2. Plaintiffs' expert report(s) in July 10, 2023 connection with class certification shall be filed by: 3. The Plaintiffs' experts are to be Aug. 10, 2023. deposed by: 4. The Defendant's expert report(s) Sept. 11, 2023 in connection with class certification shall be filed by: 5. The Defendant's experts are to be Oct. 11, 2023 deposed by: 6. The Plaintiffs' class certification Nov. 3, 2023 motion shall be filed by: 7. Dispositive motions on the merits Nov. 30, 2023 of the named plaintiffs' claims, if any, shall be filed by: Wells Fargo offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, and investment. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YSXLR8 at no extra charge.[CC] WEST VILLAGE OASIS: Paez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Elton Paez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. WEST VILLAGE OASIS INC. d/b/a CASA LA FEMME, MEDHAT IBRAHIM., and ANASTASIOS HAIRATIDIS, Case No. 151260/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Feb. 8, 2023), is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages due to an invalid tip credit, illegally retained gratuities, illegally retained surcharges, and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff regularly worked 5 days per week from 3:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., for a total of 45 hours per week. Class Members were scheduled to work similar hours. At all times of his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was compensated below the minimum wage at an hourly rate of $8.65. the Plaintiff was compensated on a weekly basis. Class Members were similarly compensated below the minimum wage. The Plaintiff and Class Members were paid below the minimum wage at an invalid "tip credit" minimum wage. The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to engage more than 20% of their working time in non-tipped related activities. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff and Class Members also suffered from the Defendants' policy of illegally retaining tips, due to an improper tip pool wherein managers would participate in the tip pool., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a server for the Defendants' Casa La Femme restaurant. The Defendants operate the restaurant "Casa La Femme," located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 WESTON MED: Bid to Strike Carraha's Bid for Attorneys' Fees Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHRISTINA CARRAHA, Plaintiff v. WESTON MED SPA & COSMETIC SURGERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-1755-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, denies the Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Prayer for Attorneys' Fees without prejudice. The lawsuit is a putative class action case brought by the Plaintiff for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and Florida's corollary statute, the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), Fla. Stat. Section 501.059. The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement. On the same day it moved to dismiss the Complaint, the Defendant also filed the instant Motion. Therein, it moves to strike the Plaintiff's prayer for attorneys' fees in the Complaint and bar the Plaintiff's counsel's firm from being granted attorneys' fees as violative of Rule 4-5.4 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 501.059(11). The Defendant asserts that this claim should be stricken because the Plaintiff's counsel's Utah-based law firm splits fees with non-lawyers, in violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. It asserts that, should Plaintiff succeed on the merits of her claim, the award of attorneys' fees would inevitably pour into the non-lawyers in the firm. The Plaintiff asserts several arguments in response. First, she states that the Defendant failed to confer by telephone prior to filing the Motion pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g). Second, she argues that the Defendant's Motion is premised on inaccurate facts about her counsel's law firm. Third, she states that the Motion improperly relies on allegations outside the pleadings. Finally, she asserts the Motion is premature prior to a finding that she is entitled to fees. Judge Kidd has reviewed each of the Plaintiff's arguments and finds the last persuasive. He says the Plaintiff has a statutory basis for her request for attorney's fees in her Complaint. Moreover, the Plaintiff has not yet been awarded fees in the action, so the request to strike it is premature at this stage in the litigation. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Strike is denied without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4a6bwh from Leagle.com. WILDFISH LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wildfish, LLC. The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wildfish, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01180 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wildfish LLC (trade name Red's Best/Menemsha Fish House) is in the Seafoods business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com WILLIWAW FOODS LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williwaw Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Williwaw Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01182 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Williwaw Foods, LLC -- https://williwawfoods.com/ -- make the finest salmon skin chips in a variety of delicious flavors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com ********* 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 ***