/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230313.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 13, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 52 Headlines A.B.C. CARPET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dudnauth Alleges ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Cheng Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir. ACV AUCTIONS: Jerry Gradi Motors Class Suit Dismissed AEROVIRONMENT INC: Continues to Defend California Labor Class Suit AETNA LIFE: Agrees to Settle Proton Beam Therapy Suit for $3.4-M ALEXANDRA LOZANO: Sanchez Sues Over Privacy, Labor Law Violations ALLAKOS INC: Kim Securities Class Suit Dismissed ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Smith Bid for Class Certification ALM AUTOMOTIVE: Colbert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation AMARIN CORP. PLC: Continues to Defend Dang Securities Class Suit AMARIN CORP: 3rd Circuit Affirms Sharma Securities Suit Dismissal AMARIN PHARMA: Court Narrows Claims in IPP Antitrust Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Oct. 30 ANGI INC: Unit Continues to Defend Airequip Class Suit in Colorado ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Judge Won't Recuse From Martinez-Sanchez Suit APOLLO ASSET: Fongers Class Suit Settlement Wins Final Nod APOLLO ASSET: Underwriters Dismissed from Class Suit ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Chavez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ARGO GROUP: Opposition to Dismissal Bid Due July 13 ATHENS FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Suit Claims ATRIA SENIOR: Loses Bid to Modify Class Definition in Stickles Suit AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Skye Named Lead Plaintiff in Ortmann Suit BALL STATE: Court Granted Transfer in COVID-19 Class Action Suit BEN & JERRY'S: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Migrant Child Labor BEN & JERRY'S: Faces Tyrnauer Class Suit Over Ethical Supply Chains BETMGM LLC: Faces Sale Class Suit Over Risk-Free Bet Online Sports BEYOND MEAT: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit BLOCKFI INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 1 BLOCKFI INC: Misrepresents Unregistered Securities, Greene Alleges BLUE OTTER: Faces Webb Class Suit Over Biometrics Info Collection CALIFORNIA: Abrams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIFORNIA: Reconsideration Bid Denial in Fitzgerald Suit Appealed CAMBRIDGE, ON: Faces $126-M Vaccine Mandate Class Action Suit CBL & ASSOCIATES: Delaware Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed CBL & ASSOCIATES: Securities Suit Ongoing in Tennessee Court CELSIUS HOLDINGS: March 31 Final Fairness Hearing for Prescot Suit CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Failed to Protect Health Info, M.Z. Says CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Kanthal-Cubides Sues Over Data Breach CENTRO GLASS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lozado Suit Alleges CLARIVATE PLC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending CLOVER HEALTH: Bond Wins Class Certification Bid CONCERNED HOME: $500K Class Deal in Quintyne Suit Wins Final Nod CORECIVIC INC: Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari in Owino COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker's $6.15-Mil. L&K Settlement Wins Final OK COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker's Counsel Awarded $3-Mil. in Fees & Costs DAVEY TREE: Luna Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. DESHI SENIOR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Saaba Says DESKTOP METAL: Continues to Defend Campanella Securities Suit DLOCAL LIMITED: Faces Hunt Class Suit Over 50% Common Stock Drop EAST JORDAN: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Wilson Alleges EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Lowe Class Suit Over Tampons' False Ads EHEALTH INC: Judgment Motions Pleadings Hearing Set for April 13 ELANCO ANIMAL: Bid to Junk Saffron Class Suit Opposed EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ENVIVA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Maryland FCA US: Class Settlement in Moran Suit Gets Final Court Approval FEDERAL EXPRESS: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5 FIRE & ICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooper Suit Alleges FRANCISCO URENA: Faces Terenzio Suit Over COVID-19-Related Deaths FRITANGA EL CHELE: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Soza Suit Says FUNKO INC: Settlement in Ferreira Stockholder Suit Gets Final Nod GNC HOLDINGS: Faces Mercado Suit Over Total Lean Bars' False Ads GOODRX HOLDINGS: Terenzini Class Suit Closed GREEN DOT: Seeks Dismissal of Koffsmon Class Suit HERMES B NY: Fails to Pay Minimum OT Wages, Ramirez Suit Says J.C. PENNEY: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Reference Pricing JET LENDING: Avina Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Commissions JTH TAX LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KEY STONE PLUMBING: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages LAMON CONSTRUCTION: Josephson Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. LAS VEGAS ACES: Chapman Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Nev. LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Dark Chocolates Contain Lead, Cadmium, Suit Says LIVE AUCTIONEERS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 2 LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voigt Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop MANDARICH LAW GROUP: Watson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida MANDARICH LAW: Judgment in FDCPA Class Action Affirmed MARK HENRY CORP: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MASTER FLOW: Fails to Pay Helpers' OT Wages, Martinez Alleges MCDERMOTT CUE: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MDL 2895: Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal in Sensipar MDL Nixed MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mandel v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Martin v. Blackbaud MDL 3062: Bohrer Farms Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. MDL 3062: KM Farms Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. MDL 3062: Psencik Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. MDL 3062: Sheller Farms Antirust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. MDL 3062: Turner Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. ME & RO INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MEMORIAL HEALTH: Stendal Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. MEMPHIS, TN: Motion for Class Certification Awaits Ruling on Mar 22 METAL CREATIONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York METROPOLITAN LIFE: Collins Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Class Cert. Bid in Price Fixing Suit Dismissed MINNESOTA: District Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Jamison v. Ludeman MUTUAL FUND: Garrison Point Wins Bid to Dismiss Claims in Koza Suit MY BAIT SHOP: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MYRIAD GENETICS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit NATIONAL GRID: Stearns Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NATIONWIDE COMPLIANT: Mitchell Sues to Recover Overtime Wages NEW YORK, NY: Muzumala Has 60 Days to File Second Amended Complaint NEW YORK: Andersen Files Appeal in Labor Suit to N.Y. Appelate Div. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Sued Over Train Derailment, Chemical Spill NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Bid to Decertify in Antitrust Suit Denied NOW COURIER: Babayemi Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification OHIO: Supreme Court Orders Judge O'Donnell to Dismiss Parma Suit PHYTAGE LABORATORIES: Baker Sues Over Unsolicited Messages PINERY CLEANERS: Meija Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages POLOLO'S FRIED: Gonzalez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages POPULUS FINANCIAL: Court Issues Final Judgment in Barragan Suit PRESTIGE CAR: Faces Uribe Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. PRIME STYLE LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PSP GROUP LLC: Popa Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington RANCHO MESQUITE: Faces Class Suit Over Massive Data Breach REAL ESTATE: Faces Suit Over Realtors' Price-Fixing Commissions REGAL MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach in Calif. RITE AID: S.D. New York Dismisses Martelli Suit With Prejudice ROUTE 41: Pinkerton Seeks Drivers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA RTR FINANCIAL: Jacobowitz Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Debt RYDER INTEGRATED: Keefer Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling SEAWORLD PARKS: Lomeli Sues Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal SERVICE WEST: De Leon Class Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages SERVICE WEST: De Leon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages SIAM MARINA: Long Seeks Bartenders' Overtime Wages Under FLSA SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend Sherman Antitrust Suit SOCCER WEARHOUSE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOUTHERN SPECIALIZED: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Wages SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Trahan Sues Over Consultants' Unpaid Overtime STATE FARM: Toms' Bid to Extend Sealing of Docs Granted in Part STEWART SURFBOARDS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SYNGENTA CORP: H & R Sues for Monopoly of Crop Protection Products TASTE OF ITALY: Faces Capir Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. TELADOC HEALTH: Thomas Class Suit Settlement Wins Final Nod TIKTOK INC: Faces Federal Class Suit Over Data, National Security TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages TRUSTEDID INC: Dismissal of O'Leary's Claim Under FIFITPA Vacated UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Cert. Bid in Breach Suit Upheld UNILEVER UNITED: Court Stays Anderson Proceeding for 90 Days UNITED COLLECTION: Adler Sues Over Misleading Collection of Debt UNITED PARCEL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 1 UNITED POOL: Austin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Premium UNITED STATES: Court Junks Bid to Review Mag. Judge Early Order UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Deadline on Class Cert Bid Reply VALENTINO USA: Benitez Bid for Class Status Denied w/o Prejudice VALLEY BROOK, OK: Bid to Extend Case Deadlines OK'd VEE PAK INC: Court Grants Class Cert. in Discrimination Class Suit VERTEX ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 2 VERTEX ENERGY: Faces Duffy Suit Over Drop in Share Price W. T. BYLER CO: Cardoso Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney Bid for Class Cert. Denied as Moot WESTMINSTER MANAGEMENT: Tenants' Class Action Revives in Maryland WHOLE FOODS: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Extended WONDER MONDAY: Donet Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WORKHORSE GROUP: Weiss Class Suit to Start March 19, 2024 ZIFF DAVIS: Dismissal of Garcia Securities Suit Under Appeal ********* A.B.C. CARPET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dudnauth Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- BOODRAM DUDNAUTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.B.C. CARPET & HOME, INC.; and ABC HOLDCO 1 LLC d/b/a ABC CARPET; and HOME, PAULETTE COLE; DINESH SEWNAUTH; and SYLVESTER CYRAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01858-ER (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Dudnauth was employed by the Defendants as stocker. A.B.C. CARPET & HOME, INC. operates as retail consumer products company. The Company provides furniture, lighting, bed and bath products, jewelry, baby and children products, and stationery products. ABC specializes in fashion, interior design products, and industrial design. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Cheng Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Gary Cheng, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order and Judgment dated January 22, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled GARY CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.; ROBERT A. KOTICK; DENNIS DURKIN, and SPENCER NEUMANN, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06240, in the United States District Court for Central California, Los Angeles. On August 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed this complaint, on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Activision Blizzard securities between August 4, 2016 and July 27, 2021, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, an amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2021, purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's shareholders who purchased stock between February 28, 2017 and November 16, 2021. In an order dated April 18, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 18, 2022, on behalf of shareholders who purchased stock between November 8, 2018 and November 16, 2021, which defendants moved to dismiss on June 16, 2022. In an order dated August 30, 2022, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with leave to amend. The Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on September 29, 2022. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint was filed October 31, 2022. On January 22, 2023, the District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended class action complaint. The action was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Judge Percy Anderson further entered Judgment consistent with the Order dismissing the case and held that Plaintiffs take nothing and Defendants shall have their costs of suit. The appellate case is captioned as Gary Cheng, et al. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55158, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Feb. 21, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Nick Baldwin, Gary Cheng, Micah Ernst, Chris Martin, Michael Noon, Jeff Ross and Alejandro Toiber Mediation Questionnaire was due on Feb. 28, 2023; -- Appellants Nick Baldwin, Gary Cheng, Micah Ernst, Chris Martin, Michael Noon, Jeff Ross and Alejandro Toiber opening brief is due on April 24, 2023; -- Appellees Activision Blizzard, Inc., Dennis Durkin, Brian Kelly, Robert A. Kotick and Armin Zerza answering brief is due on May 24, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GARY CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Laurence Mathew Rosen, Esq. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016-1101 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Defendants-Appellees ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., et al., are represented by: Kevin P. Muck, Esq. Susan Samuels Muck, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP One Front Street, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (628) 235-1029 - and - Michael E. Romeo, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP 350 S Grand Avenue, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-5319 ACV AUCTIONS: Jerry Gradi Motors Class Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- ACV Auctions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed the Jerry Gradi Motors class suit on January 31, 2023. On March 19, 2021, a putative class action was filed by Jerry Gradl Motors, Inc., et al. against ACV Auctions Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (the “Court”), alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws and New York State law related to an alleged conspiracy to set bids on our marketplace from transactions that originated from one seller. The complaint seeks statutory damages under such laws and other relief. In July 2021, the complaint was amended to add and modify allegations beyond the initial complaint, as well as to add certain individuals as individual defendants, including George Chamoun, the Company's Chief Executive Officer. In January 2022, the Court heard arguments on the motion to dismiss that the defendants had previously filed and dismissed the federal claims with leave for the plaintiff to amend their complaint. In the fourth quarter of 2022, the Company recorded a liability for litigation matters in anticipation of the settlement. As of January 31, 2023, the complaint has been settled and dismissed by the court. ACV Auctions Inc. -- https://www.acvauctions.com/ -- provides a digital marketplace for wholesale vehicle transactions and data services.[BN] AEROVIRONMENT INC: Continues to Defend California Labor Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aerovironment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the California labor class suit in the in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California. On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime and other recordkeeping matters. The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The Company filed its answer on December 16, 2021. Discovery in this lawsuit has begun and is ongoing. The Company continues to mount a vigorous defense. Aerovironment Inc. designs, develops, produces, delivers and supports a technologically-advanced portfolio of intelligent, multi-domain robotic systems and related services based in Virginia. AETNA LIFE: Agrees to Settle Proton Beam Therapy Suit for $3.4-M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Cass of Becker's Payers Issues reports that Aetna has agreed to pay up to $3.4 million to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging it wrongly refused to cover patients' cancer treatment, Bloomberg Law reported March 6, 2023. The settlement allows 142 patients who were denied proton beam therapy treatment between June 2017 and October 2020 to receive cash payments of up to $24,000, according to the report. Each class member who submits a timely and valid claim form will receive a minimum of $10,000. The proposed class-action lawsuit argued Aetna wrongly denied coverage of proton beam therapy when it argued the treatment was experimental and investigational, according to the report. After the lawsuit was filed, Aetna revised its coverage guidelines, expanding the list of conditions for which it considered proton beam therapy appropriate treatment. The agreement is subject to approval by Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Cynthia Rufe, according to the report. [GN] ALEXANDRA LOZANO: Sanchez Sues Over Privacy, Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- ILSE SANCHEZ and KARLA VELAZQUEZ individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALEXANDRA LOZANO IMMIGRATION LAW PLLC and ALEXANDRA LOZANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01028 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 21, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Revised Code of Washington and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges Defendants' violations of state and federal laws by forcing its low-wage employees (for example, $22 per hour legal assistants) to sign restrictive non-competition agreements; by recording the audio and video of its workers while they are working in its offices; and by misclassifying some of its workers as exempt to avoid paying them overtime premiums. Plaintiff Ilse Sanchez worked for Immigration Law PLLC from approximately October 17, 2022 to January 9, 2023 under a number of different titles including, "Client Care Specialist," "Senior Paralegal," and "Licenciados." Karla Velazquez worked for Immigration Law PLLC from approximately November 22, 2022 to January 9, 2023 and had the title of "Legal Assistant." Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law PLLC is one of the largest immigration law firms in the United States and is headquartered in the state of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C. 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 861-1800 - and - David J. Fish, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C. 200 East 5th Avenue, Suite 115 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (312) 861-1800 E-mail: docketing@fishlawfirm.com ALLAKOS INC: Kim Securities Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ Allakos Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2023, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the Kim securities class suit on December 6, 2022. on March 10, 2020, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Robert Alexander, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Leo Redmond. The complaint asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought damages based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Phase 2 clinical trials of lirentelimab. The proposed class period was August 5, 2019, through December 17, 2019, inclusive. On August 28, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding as defendants Dr. Adam Tomasi, its President, then Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Dr. Henrik Rasmussen, its then Chief Medical Officer. On March 31, 2022, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. On April 29, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which extended the proposed class period from December 17, 2019 to December 21, 2021 and added additional claims related to the Company's Phase 3 ENIGMA clinical trial. On June 13, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On December 6, 2022, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without leave to amend and entered judgment in the defendants' favor. The plaintiffs did not appeal the judgment, and the Company considers this matter closed. Allakos Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing lirentelimab (AK002), formerly known as antolimab, the company's wholly-owned monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of various mast cell and eosinophil related diseases. The company is based in Redwood City, California. ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Smith Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH SMITH, v. ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL, Case No. 2:19-cv-00147-MRH-PLD (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order granting the motion for class certification. 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification of the following class is granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 23(a) and (b)(3): "All current or former hourly employees who were provided by Strom as a replacement labor force and who performed work at any ATI facility in Pennsylvania (Bagdad, Brackenridge, Latrobe, Midland, Natrona Heights, Vandergrift and/or Washington) during the August 15, 2015 to March 4, 2016 lockout and labor dispute between ATI and the USW." 2. Ralph Smith is appointed as the class representative. 3. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. is appointed as Class Counsel. 4. The action is referred back to Judge Dodge for further proceedings. This civil action was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge for the conduct of pretrial proceedings, and the preparation of relevant reports and recommendations. Pending is a Motion for Class Certification. That Motion has been extensively briefed and is supported by a comprehensive compendium of record materials generated by the discovery process. Judge Dodge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") that the Motion for Class Certification by granted. Objections to the R&R were filed, and such were then opposed. The undersigned, upon de novo review, concluded that the R&R did not reveal any legal error and was in accord with the applicable law when issued. However, because in the interim, our Court of Appeals had issued a precedential opinion in Allen v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., 37 F. 4th 890 (3d Cir. 2022), which the undersigned observed could potentially impact the reasoning of the R&R on the issues relevant to class certification, the matter was remanded back to Judge Dodge for appropriate further proceedings, and the Objections to the R&R were dismissed without prejudice. Allegheny produces titanium and titanium alloys, nickel-based alloys and superalloys, stainless and specialty steels, zirconium, hafnium, and niobium, tungsten materials, forgings and castings. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J2lkl8 at no extra charge.[CC] ALM AUTOMOTIVE: Colbert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL COLBERT, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALM AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00025-CAR (M.D. Ga., Feb. 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the overtime and non-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Colbert worked for the Defendant as a detailer at ALM's Athens, Georgia location. He asserts that he was not paid by the Defendant for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek. Shortly after Colbert made a complaint to ALM's human resources, he was terminated from his position as a detailer, says the Plaintiff. ALM Automotive Group is an independent used car dealership company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Ramsland, Esq. RAMSLAND LAW 880 Monon Green Blvd Suite 101.51 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (765) 267-1240 E-mail: jason@rams.land AMARIN CORP. PLC: Continues to Defend Dang Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amarin Corp. PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Dang securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On October 21, 2021, a purported investor in the Company's publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation plc, the former chief executive officer and the former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Vincent Dang v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Michael W. Kalb, No. 1:21-cv-19212 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2021) and a subsequent case, Dorfman v. Amarin Corporation plc, et al., No. 3:21-cv-19911 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 10, 2021), was filed in November 2021. In December 2021, several Amarin shareholders moved to consolidate the cases, or the Securities Litigation, and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2023 that added as a defendant the Company's former general counsel. The complaints in these actions are nearly identical and allege that the Company misled investors by allegedly downplaying the risk associated with the ANDA litigation described above and the risk that certain of the Company's patents would be invalidated. Based on these allegations, plaintiff alleges that he purchased securities at an inflated share price and brings claims under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 seeking unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims but cannot predict the outcome. Amarin Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and commercialization of therapeutics for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases in the United States. The company was formerly known as Ethical Holdings plc and changed its name to Amarin Corporation plc in 1999. Amarin Corporation plc was incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. AMARIN CORP: 3rd Circuit Affirms Sharma Securities Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amarin Corp. PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the 3rd Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Sharma securities class suit by the trial district court on June 14, 2022. On June 14, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the matter by the trial district court. On February 22, 2019, a purported investor in the Company's publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation plc, the former chief executive officer and chief scientific officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Debendra Sharma v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 2:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2019). On March 12, 2019, another purported investor filed a substantially similar lawsuit captioned Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 3:19-cv-08423 (D.N.J. March 12, 2019). On May 14, 2019 the court consolidated the cases under the caption In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No. 3:19-cv-06601 and appointed two other purported shareholders, Dan Kotecki and the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, or Amended Complaint, on July 22, 2019 that added as defendants the Company’s former chief medical officer and the Company's former chief executive officer. The Amended Complaint alleged that from September 24, 2018 to November 9, 2018 the Company misled investors by releasing topline results for the REDUCE-IT study without disclosing data on biomarker increases in the placebo group as compared with baseline measurement. The Amended Complaint alleged that these data suggest that the mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT study may have interfered with statin absorption in the placebo group, which they alleged may have increased adverse outcomes in the placebo group. The Amended Complaint further alleged that these purported misrepresentations and omissions inflated the share price. Based on these allegations, the suit asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2021, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss this litigation for failure to state a valid claim. The litigation was dismissed without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs the right to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs in this action did not file an amended complaint within the permitted filing deadline. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the motion to dismiss ruling, which has been denominated In re: Amarin Corp. PLC, case number 21-2071 (3d Cir.). On June 14, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the matter by the trial district court. Amarin Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and commercialization of therapeutics for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases in the United States. The company was formerly known as Ethical Holdings plc and changed its name to Amarin Corporation plc in 1999. Amarin Corporation plc was incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. AMARIN PHARMA: Court Narrows Claims in IPP Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FAMILY PROTECTION PLAN LOCAL 854, et al., v. AMARIN PHARMA, INC., et al, Case No. 3:21-cv-12061-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. -- The Court will grant the motion insofar as it will: dismiss without prejudice the Consolidated Complaint's claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (within Count Six); and dismiss without prejudice the Consolidated Complaint's claims for unjust enrichment under the laws of Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming (within Count 7); and will otherwise deny the Motion. -- Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs will be given leave to amend its Consolidated Complaint within 30 days. Given that the authority cited by Amarin does not support the relief they seek, this portion of the Motion will be denied. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the Named Plaintiffs and the class members purchased, or reimbursed for, the purchase of Vascepa and its generic equivalent, and that Amarin was unjustly enriched by overcharges for these products. It also alleges that "Amarin's enrichment and the impoverishment of plaintiffs and the class are connected." At this stage of the litigation, the Court rejects as premature Amarin's argument that the connection between the purchases and Amarin's enrichment are too tenuous because their position "raises factual questions" and presumes that IPPs "can prove no set of facts allowing it to state a common law claim for unjust enrichment. Here, IPPs bring claims for violations of state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as unjust enrichment on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of: all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for generic and/or brand Vascepa from Amarin, Hikma, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, or any other manufacturer of a generic version of Vascepa or any agents, predecessors, or successors thereof, for consumption by themselves, their families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, other than for resale, during the period from August 7, 2020 through and until the anticompetitive effects of the defendants' unlawful conduct cease. The suit is consolidated in RE: VASCEPA ANTITRUST LITIGATION INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS. Amarin operates as a biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kP7IQZ at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Oct. 30 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered a Rule 16(b) and Rule 23(d)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows: Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for Oct. 30, 2023 class certification: Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: Jan. 12, 2024 Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Mar. 12, 2024 Class: Hearing on Motion to Certify Class: To be set by the Court after briefing completed Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YhQvxi at no extra charge.[CC] ANGI INC: Unit Continues to Defend Airequip Class Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------------ Angi Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Airequip class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as amended in November 2016, alleges that HomeAdvisor engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals ("SPs") who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads and failing to disclose certain charges. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting of all HomeAdvisor SPs since October 2012, asserts claims for fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the federal RICO statute and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), and seeks injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount. In July 2018, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802, on behalf of the same nine SPs proposed as new plaintiffs in the Airquip case, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, Angi and IAC (as well as an unrelated company), and asserting 45 claims largely duplicative of those asserted in a proposed second amended complaint in the Airquip case. In November 2018, the judge presiding over the Airquip case issued an order consolidating the two cases to proceed before him under the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation. In January 2019, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for leave to file a consolidated second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to HomeAdvisor, Angi and IAC, CraftJack, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and thus, an entity affiliated with HomeAdvisor) and two unrelated entities. In February 2019, the defendants opposed the motion on various grounds. In September 2019, the court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion. In October and December 2019, the four defendants affiliated with HomeAdvisor filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the amended complaint. In September 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. On May 5, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On June 27, 2022, the Company opposed the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which remains pending. The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. Angi Inc., formerly ANGI Homeservices, Inc., connects quality home service professionals with consumers across 500 different categories, from repairing and remodeling homes to cleaning and landscaping. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Judge Won't Recuse From Martinez-Sanchez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. ANTHONY VINEYARDS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01404-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Ana de Alba of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Defendants' motion to disqualify the Court. On Dec. 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint as a putative class action alleging various state and federal labor law violations. They filed a motion for class certification on April 30, 2021. On Nov. 18, 2021, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that, among other conclusions, recommended certification of a monetary relief class defined as: "All persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt field workers in non-supervisory positions who performed agricultural work for Anthony Vineyards' agricultural operations within the State of California at any time between Oct. 4, 2015 through the date of service of this order." The Magistrate Judge also issued findings and recommendations on Oct. 22, 2021 that recommend striking some, but not all, of the Plaintiffs' PAGA claims. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions on both motions. The findings and recommendations remain pending before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C). On Aug. 24, 2022, Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller reassigned the matter from the docket of Judge Dale A. Drozd to the docket of Judge de Alba. On Jan. 10, 2023, the Defendants filed the instant motion to disqualify the Court. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition on Jan. 19, 2023, and the Defendants replied on Feb. 3, 2023. The Court has determined that the matter is suitable for decision on the papers, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). The Defendants' allegations fall largely into three categories. First, Judge de Alba's prior participation on the Boards of Directors of California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. ("CRLA") and Legal Aid at Work ("LAAW"). Judge de Alba served on the CRLA Board of Directors from roughly 2015 through 2018 and the LAAW Board of Directors from roughly 2014 through 2018. The Defendants tie each of the Plaintiffs' co-counsel either to CRLA or LAAW in a manner they contend exposes the Court's partiality in the matter. Second, certain public comments Judge de Alba has made regarding working conditions in California's Central Valley. Among other things, the Defendants quote Judge de Alba from CRLA's 2015 annual report that CRLA's client community is very personal to her because the Central Valley is her home. Additionally, they point out that CRLA listed the undersigned as a donor in both 2016 and 2017. Lastly, Judge de Alba's legal advocacy for field workers before her appointment to the bench. The Defendants point to the fact that CRLA's 2015 annual report favorably compares Judge de Alba to Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, co-founders of the United Farmworkers' Union and members of the first CRLA Board of Directors. They claim that many of Sycamore's employees since 2017 would have also been Medi-Cal participants in 2017, and that, therefore, the putative class in that case would overlap with the putative class in the instant matter. Judge de Alba denies the Defendants' motion as untimely. She says while she agrees that the timing of the Defendants' motion is delayed -- the Defense counsel first conferred with the Plaintiffs' counsel about the issue of disqualification on Sept. 20, 2022, less than a month after the case was reassigned and slightly less than four months before they filed their motion -- denial on the grounds of timeliness would be inappropriate. The Defendants' affidavits and arguments are deficient, but it is clear they do not follow any adverse ruling from the Court. Judge de Alba also finds that the Defendants' motion and affidavit lack merit. She says requiring recusal based on a judge's prior employment would be untenable -- at its logical extreme, it would prevent former United States Attorneys and Federal Public Defenders from hearing any criminal matters on their dockets. In sum, Judge de Alba holds that none of the Defendants' arguments, standing alone or taken together, suggest the existence of bias warranting her recusal. She says the Defendants' objections simply amount to a discomfort with her lived and professional experience. Courts, however, have long recognized that judges are not sterile creatures who don judicial robes without any prior contacts in the community but rather are very likely to be men and women with a broad exposure to all kinds of citizens of all shades of persuasion and background. Judge de Alba points out that bringing diverse experiences and perspectives to the federal bench is a boon, not a detriment, to the cause of equal justice under the law. To hold otherwise would make social, cultural, and political ignorance a prerequisite for judicial impartiality and elevate naivete over knowledge. Accordingly, Judge de Alba denies the Defendants' motion for disqualification. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8m9jk3 from Leagle.com. APOLLO ASSET: Fongers Class Suit Settlement Wins Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Asset Management Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2023, that the court gave its final approval to the Fongers class suit settlement on November 14, 2022. On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Benjamin Fongers filed a putative class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against CareerBuilder, LLC ("CareerBuilder") and AAM. Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its compensation plan so that sales representatives such as Fongers would (i) receive reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to receive commissions for accounts they originated that were not reassigned to anyone else, a departure from the earlier plan. Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were earlier entitled. Plaintiff alleges that AAM exercises complete control over CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as AAM's agent. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges claims against both defendants for breach of written contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Sales Representative Act, and violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act. The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on January 6, 2020. On October 21, 2020, the district court granted the motion to remand. On January 11, 2021, the district court ordered the clerk of court to take the necessary steps to transfer the case back to Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County. On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to recover attorneys' fees of approximately $35,000 for the remand briefing. Defendants filed their opposition on March 31, 2021, and Plaintiff replied on April 14, 2021. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County on June 11, which were fully briefed on August 13, 2021. CareerBuilder has also filed a Motion for a Protective Order and to Stay Discovery pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss. On February 7, 2022, the court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss and the request to stay discovery. At the hearing, the court took the motions to dismiss under advisement and granted CareerBuilder's motion to stay discovery. On March 11, 2022, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement notifying the court that the parties have reached an agreement to resolve the case in full, and the court approved the settlement on November 14, 2022. The settlement required no payment from any Apollo-affiliated defendants. Apollo Asset Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. Apollo Asset Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APOLLO ASSET: Underwriters Dismissed from Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Apollo Asset Management, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2023, that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed all claims against the underwriters on December 2, 2022, but claims against two of its executives and PlayAGS will proceed. On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against PlayAGS Inc. ("PlayAGS"), all of the members of PlayAGS's board of directors (including three directors who are affiliated with Apollo), certain underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), as well as AAM, Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC (these last four parties, together, the "Apollo Defendants"). The complaint asserts claims against all defendants arising under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain secondary offerings of PlayAGS stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019, alleging that the registration statements issued in connection with those offerings did not fully disclose certain business challenges facing PlayAGS. The complaint further asserts a control person claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors affiliated with Apollo), alleging such defendants were responsible for certain misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business. On December 2, 2022, the Court dismissed all claims against the underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC) and the Apollo Defendants, but allowed a claim against PlayAGS and two of the Company's executives to proceed. No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Asset Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Chavez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON CHAVEZ, on behalf of the State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., dba ATHENS SERVICES, a California Corporation; ATHENS DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV03817 (Cal. Super., Los Angles Cty., Feb. 22, 2023) is a representative action filed by Plaintiff, on behalf of all aggrieved employees and the State of California, against the Defendants, pursuant to California's Private Attorney General Act for Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest period violations, inaccurate wage statements, failure to produce employment records, inaccurate payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, sick leave violations, unlawful deductions, failure to provide supplemental paid sick leave, failure to pay vested vacation/paid time off, failure to timely pay all wages upon separation of employment, and unlawful agreements/unlawful criminal history inquiries. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dispatcher and/or similar title(s) from July 2017 through February 2022. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Athens Services, provides waste collection and recycling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496-5818 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com ARGO GROUP: Opposition to Dismissal Bid Due July 13 --------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2023, that the lead plaintiff in Police securities class suit should oppose the defendants' motion to dismiss amended complaint on or before July 13, 2023. The Police & Fire Retirement System City of Detroit v. Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., et al., No. 22-cv-8971 (S.D.N.Y.) On October 20, 2022, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging securities fraud violations under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff alleges that from February 13, 2018 through August 9, 2022, Defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's reserves and underwriting standards. On January 18, 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the Police and Fire Retirement System City of Detroit and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System's joint motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. With the Court's approval, lead plaintiffs are expected to file an amended complaint on or before March 13, 2023. Defendants anticipate making a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, due on or before May 12, 2023. Lead plaintiff is expected to serve an opposition to said motion on or before July 13, 2023, after which Defendants anticipate serving a reply. ARGO GROUP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD. offers property casualty insurance and reinsurance. The Company offers excess and surplus lines, select markets, and international specialty insurance. [BN] ATHENS FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- WILFREDO GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATHENS FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00348-CEF (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 23, 2023) challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio Revised Code by failing to pay all wages, including straight time and overtime to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in the last three years in its manufacturing facility in Cleveland, Ohio. Plaintiff's job duties involved the manufacturing, packaging, and handling of food products. Athens Foods, Inc. manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2944 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com ATRIA SENIOR: Loses Bid to Modify Class Definition in Stickles Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GEORGE STICKLES and MICHELE RHODES, Plaintiffs v. ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC., and ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. C 20-09220 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Defendants' motion to clarify or modify class definition, or to compel arbitrations in the alternative. Plaintiffs George Stickles and Michele Rhodes worked as "Community Sales Directors" (CSDs) for Defendants Atria Senior Living, Inc., and Atria Management Co., LLC. This wage-and-hour class action concerns whether the Defendants improperly classified CSDs as exempt outside salespersons such that CSDs were not entitled to overtime and meal and rest break rules under California law. The Court's prior order certified a class of CSDs, who did not sign arbitration agreements and whom the Defendants classified as exempt outside salespersons from April 9, 2018, through Sept. 29, 2019. The class was certified solely to the issue of whether the Defendants properly classified CSDs as exempt outside salespersons. The parties each moved for summary judgment on that issue, and the motions were fully briefed as of February 2022. The Defendants then moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Rhodes' California Private Attorneys General Act claim, which motion was fully briefed as of April 2022. The parties subsequently entered settlement discussions and moved for approval of a proposed class settlement, which was rejected in June 2022. Outstanding motions were stayed pending settlement. In a status report dated June 21, 2022, the Defendants raised for the first time they had discovered that, due to a clerical mistake, a group of employees, who had been subject to arbitration agreements had erroneously been included in the Class. The agreements in question were not produced during discovery, and consisted of arbitration agreements sent on one occasion in March 2019 to then-existing employees by email, informing them that they would be subject to the agreement if they remained employed by the Defendants 30 days afterwards. An order resumed the litigation schedule due to the parties' inability to settle on July 26, 2022. That order explicitly explained that the class members the Defendants claimed to have been erroneously included "are still members of the class," and that it "would take substantial motion practice to compel them to arbitrate." The outstanding motions for summary judgment were then rescheduled for a hearing, and a summary judgment hearing was held on Nov. 16, 2022. The resultant order granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on classification, determining that CSDs are not exempt outside salespersons. The Defendants now move to excise those class members they claimed were erroneously included in the class. Judge Alsup notes that this is not a close case. The Defendants have been on notice since July 2022 that their apparent revelation of emailed, unsigned arbitration agreements did not alter the defined class, and that motion practice would be required to compel arbitration. Nevertheless, the Defendants waited until after summary judgment practice and resolution (which they lost) to try to narrow the class definition and to compel arbitration. This behavior is inconsistent with the Defendants' alleged right to compel arbitration, Judge Alsup holds. The Defendants may not wait to see how the judicial winds blow before reversing course towards arbitration, Judge Alsup says. Furthermore, Judge Alsup points out that the fact that the Defendants waited until after the outcome of summary judgment indicates waiver. If the Defendants had won their summary judgment motion, the idea of arbitration would have sunk without trace, for it would have struck an arrow through the heart of all class members' claims, a strategic outcome that is difficult to understate. So the Defendants waited to see the outcome and availed themselves of a potential favorable judicial ruling. Judge Alsup finds this was inconsistent with asserting the right to arbitrate. Judge Alsup notes that the Defendants attempt to argue around the issue by saying even if the right to compel arbitration is waived, they can nevertheless seek to modify the class definition. Indeed, the Defendants characterize their motion as primarily focused on clarifying the class definition by shearing over half its members, as it may not even be appropriate to determine, on a collective basis, whether they should be compelled to arbitration. Surely the inability to commit to arbitration at this penultimate hour indicates waiver, Judge Alsup points out. In any event, Judge Alsup finds the Defendants' arguments supporting modification of the class are all premised on class members being bound by arbitration. Because this order finds that the right to compel arbitration has been waived, Judge Alsup holds there is no reason to disturb the current class definition. There is no dispute that the emailed arbitration agreements in question were not signed, so as a factual matter the class definition remains accurate. Given the foregoing, Judge Alsup holds he need not reach the credibility of the Defendants' claimed oversight, however confounding it may be that they fully briefed prior motions to certify the class and also to compel arbitration without a real understanding as to which of its own employees were subject to arbitration. The Plaintiffs have also prophylactically briefed and filed a motion to intervene regarding standing, but the Defendants do not contest the issue and neither party raises a question of standing, so the motion to intervene is unnecessary. For these reasons, the Defendants' motion to clarify or modify the class definition, or to compel arbitrations in the alternative is denied. The Plaintiffs' motion to intervene is denied as moot. The hearing for this motion is vacated. Trial remains set for April 24, 2023, at 7:30 a.m. The final pretrial conference remains set for April 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ct7mn8y from Leagle.com. AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Skye Named Lead Plaintiff in Ortmann Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge George J. Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, appoints Skye Capital Partners as Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL J. ORTMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., PETER GREENLEAF, and JOSEPH MILLER, Defendants, Case No. GJH-22-1335 (D. Md.). Plaintiff Michael J. Ortmann, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this civil action against Defendants Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc., Peter Greenleaf, and Joseph Miller for violations of SectionS 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Pending before the Court are multiple motions for appointment as lead Plaintiff and approval of choice of counsel. Aurinia is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes therapies to treat various diseases with unmet medical need in Japan and China. The Company's only product is LUPKYNIS, which is for adult patients with active lupus nephritis. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about Aurinia as it pertains to its revenues, sales outlook, commercial prospects, financial position, and public statements. On May 6, 2021, Aurinia issued a press release reporting the Company's first quarter 2021 financial results and recent operational highlights. On that same day, Aurinia hosted an earnings call with investors and analysts. On Aug. 5, 2021, Aurinia issued another press release reporting the Company's second quarter and six-month 2021 financials. That same day, Aurinia likewise hosted an earnings call with investors and analysts. On Nov. 3, 2021, Aurinia issued another press release for the third quarter and nine-month 2021 financials. That same day, Aurinia hosted an earnings call with investors and analysts to discuss the third quarter 2021 results. The press releases and the earnings calls presented an overwhelmingly positive outlook for Aurinia with a high earning potential of an estimated $40-50 million for 2021. On Feb. 16, 2022, Aurinia attended a Global Healthcare Conference in which Defendant Greenleaf, CEO of Aurinia, made positive statements about the financial outlook of Aurinia, stating that amongst other things "aggressive numbers will come from us." The Plaintiff states that all of these statements made from May 6, 2021, through Feb. 16, 2022, were false and misleading because: (i) Aurinia failed to disclose that Aurinia was experiencing declining revenues; (ii) Aurinia's 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS would fall well short of expectations; (iii) accordingly, the Company had significantly overstated LUPKYNIS's commercial prospects; (iv) as a result, the Company had overstated its financial position and/or prospects for 2022; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On Feb. 28, 2022, Aurinia issued a press release announcing its financial results for the quarter and full year ended Dec. 31, 2021. That press release provided a net revenue guidance of 115 to 135 million dollars from sales of LUPKYNIS for fiscal year 2022, which according to a market analyst, was "well short of expectations" with "wall street expecting the company's 2022 revenue forecast to come in around $178 million." The report also showed a year-over-year decline. That same day, Aurinia's common share price fell 24.26%, closing at $12.30 per share. On April 15, 2022, the Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On June 2, 2022, by joint stipulation and order, the case was transferred to this Court. Of those movants seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff, three have since withdrawn their motions or filed notices of non-opposition. Remaining for the Court's determination are motions by movant Rasik-Desai; movant ACDC Investments Limited; and movant Skye Capital Partners. As an initial matter, Judge Hazel notes that all three of these movants have satisfied the first prong under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") and have filed a motion in response to a PSLRA notice. The Plaintiff in this action published a PSLRA notice of the pendency of the Action on April 15, 2022. The notice informed members of the proposed class of the 60-day deadline of June 14, 2022, to seek appointment as lead Plaintiff. All three of these movants filed their motions on June 14, 2022. As to the second prong, Judge Hazel says none of the parties' dispute that Skye Capital Partners is the movant with the largest financial interest, having lost approximately 6 million dollars as a result of the Defendants' alleged misstatements and omissions. Because Skye Capital is the movant with the largest financial interest, the Court begins its analysis by determining whether Skye Capital satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At this stage, Judge Hazel finds Skye Capital has met its burden to show typicality and adequacy. Skye Capital has satisfied the Rule 23 requirements and has established a rebuttable presumption that they are the plaintiff that will most fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The only movant to challenge the rebuttable presumption raised by Skye Capital Partners is ACDC Investments, the movant with the second largest financial loss. ACDC states that Skye Capital is not the most adequate Plaintiff because they are subject to a unique defense as they failed to submit the statutorily required certification, as the certification they submitted had no indication that Mr. Cerchione, the individual who signed the certification, is authorized to act on behalf of Skye Capital. Skye Capital has since filed amended certifications that comply with the requirements under PSLRA. Thus, Judge Hazel finds this evidence is not enough to rebut the presumption raised by Skye Capital. ACDC investments next states, among other things, that Skye Capital is not the most adequate Plaintiff and is subject to a unique defense because of Mr. Cerchione's (the sole director of Skye Capital Partners), alleged past fraudulent conduct. ACDC states that Skye Capital is inadequate to serve as lead Plaintiff because of a 2012 litigation where Mr. Cerchione was accused of using client assets to benefit himself. Judge Hazel holds that ACDC also fails to rebut the presumption raised by Skye Capital on this ground, as well. Skye Capital Partners has chosen the law firm of Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. ("BES") as Lead Counsel and the law firm of Adelberg, Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, LLC ("Adelberg") as Liaison Counsel to represent it in this matter. The Court approves Skye Capital's selection of counsel. For these reasons, Skye Capital Partner's Motion is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 20, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3d5sjx from Leagle.com. BALL STATE: Court Granted Transfer in COVID-19 Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Carden of KPVI reports that The Indiana Supreme Court announced March 6, 2023, it granted transfer in Mellowitz v. Ball State University, thereby vacating a Court of Appeals ruling that struck down a 2021 state law providing limited legal immunity to higher education institutions. Indiana Supreme Court to decide validity of COVID-19 class action lawsuits against colleges and universities. The state's highest court has agreed to review a lower court ruling that opened the door to class action lawsuits against Indiana colleges and universities stemming from the shutdown of in-person instruction and residential campus services amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Keller J. Mellowitz, a Ball State student, challenged the statute at the appellate court after a Marion County judge said House Enrolled Act 1002 barred his effort to seek, on behalf of all affected Ball State students, a refund of in-person tuition and student fees for the period after March 2020 when the Muncie university closed to minimize the potential spread of the coronavirus. Mellowitz said the retroactive statute, approved by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb 11 months after he initially filed suit, contravenes the procedural rules relating to class action lawsuits prescribed by Indiana's judicial branch. Specifically, the law says a class action lawsuit "may not" be filed against public or private colleges and universities in Indiana for alleged contract violations or claims of unjust enrichment in connection with COVID-19 prevention measures. But that directly conflicts with the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure that specifically authorize a class action when certain conditions are met, including questions of law common to all class members for which a single resolution will promote efficiency and economy of judicial resources. In a 3-0 decision, the Court of Appeals said in this case the state's trial rules prevail over a merely procedural statute seeking to usurp them. "It is a fundamental rule of Indiana law that when a procedural statute conflicts with a procedural rule adopted by the Supreme Court, the latter shall take precedence," wrote Judge Terry Crone, a South Bend native, on behalf of the Court of Appeals. He said instead of furthering judicial objectives, the law actually frustrates them by encouraging a multiplicity of lawsuits from similarly situated plaintiffs, since Ball State's legal liability and potential payout for breach of contract or unjust enrichment are not reduced by prohibiting a class action. As a result, the appeals court said it concluded the law "is a nullity" and ordered the case returned to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision to grant Ball State's transfer request supersedes that order. Oral arguments before the high court are scheduled for April 11, 2023. There is no timeline for a decision by the five justices. Similar pending cases against Indiana University and Purdue University have been put on hold awaiting a Supreme Court decision in this case. A different Indiana statute, Senate Enrolled Act 1 (2021), also prohibited class action lawsuits for COVID-19 tort claims against businesses and other entities, including consumer products. [GN] BEN & JERRY'S: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Migrant Child Labor ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Ben & Jerry's faces a proposed class action that alleges the ice cream icon's claims that its products are ethically sourced are false given that its supply chains make use of migrant child labor. The 18-page lawsuit accuses Ben & Jerry's of wishing to "have its ice cream and eat it too" by selling such products with the aid of "ceaseless" human rights-centric and "virtue-signaling" representations that profess concern for farmworker welfare. The reality "could not be further from the truth," the case claims, alleging that consumers have overpaid for Ben & Jerry's ice cream that is not as ethically sourced as advertised. According to the lawsuit, the "premiums" that buyers pay for Ben & Jerry's ice cream "are not justified and constitute a breach of consumer trust" by way of false advertising. "Put simply, this is a case about greed run amok," the lawsuit, filed on March 3 in New York, says. The case was filed in the wake of a February 25 New York Times exposé that shed light on the "widespread exploitation of migrant children in the United States," including at the milk processing facilities of "at least one" Ben & Jerry's supplier. The suit says that although Ben & Jerry's appears to cut corners by utilizing suppliers who use migrant child labor, the company nevertheless raised prices by 13 percent in the fourth quarter of 2022. "This is not only disgraceful, but it enriches Ben & Jerry's beyond what is fair and equitable at the cost of consumers," the complaint reads. Vermont-headquartered Ben & Jerry's has historically "leaned into social justice issues" as part of its advertising and marketing to attract "like-minded consumers that seek to use their purchasing power to promote a common ethos," the lawsuit relays. Overall, many buyers are willing to pay more for Ben & Jerry's products, in part because the company purports to maintain "some of the highest ethical standards in the dairy industry," the filing says, specifically highlighting the company's "Caring Dairy" and "Milk with Dignity" programs as part of a larger “calculated business decision” aimed at pulling in ethics-driven consumers. By way of product packaging statements, and even some product names, Ben & Jerry's implores consumers to buy its ice cream because the company is "better" in comparison to other brands, the suit states. Per the case, Ben & Jerry's "goes above and beyond to tell consumers they should feel good about buying its products" over others, especially because the company is using "ice cream to change the world." Despite its pervasive ethical messaging, Ben & Jerry's was "recently exposed for using at least one supplier that employs migrant child labor," the lawsuit says. In a February 25 piece titled "Alone and Exploited, Migrant Children Work Brutal Jobs Across the U.S.," the Times unpacked the systemic use and exploitation of child labor nationwide, identifying Ben & Jerry's as among the companies who "grind[] [migrant children] into exhaustion." In response to the Times report, the lawsuit shares, the non-profit Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services issued a statement in which it demanded that Ben & Jerry's end all contracts with manufacturers who rely on migrant child labor. Tellingly, in response to the Times exposé, Ben & Jerry's did not deny the allegations or even claim to lack knowledge of them, but instead "trotted out a hollow corporate-speak statement" attesting that the company is "opposed to child labor of any kind whatsoever," the case says. In its statement, Ben & Jerry's vowed to "take decisive action in connection with [its] suppliers and the Milk with Dignity Standards Council," an independent farmworker-led human rights program, should its monitoring programs or farmworker hotlines identify instances of child labor on the farms its suppliers purchase dairy from. Neither the plaintiff, a New York resident, nor other consumers would have bought Ben & Jerry's ice cream or paid as much as they did, had they known the company's supply lines contained migrant child labor, the complaint says. In the wake of the Times report, the Biden administration announced new initiatives to investigate child labor and improve aid for migrant children in the United States. Since 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has seen a 69 percent increase in children being employed illegally by companies. Late last month, the DOL resolved one of the largest ever child labor cases in history against Packers Sanitation Services, a food safety sanitation services provider who paid $1.5 million in civil penalties after being found to employ more than 100 children in hazardous occupations and on overnight shifts at meat processing facilities across eight states. The case looks to cover all consumers in the United States who, during the applicable time period, bought Ben & Jerry's products. There's usually nothing you need to do to join or sign up for a proposed class action lawsuit when it's first filed. It's only if and when a case settles that consumers who are covered by the suit, called "class members," would need to act. In this instance, a class member may need to fill out and submit a claim form online or by mail and may receive notice of the settlement with instructions on what to do next and their legal rights. However, class action cases tend to take some time - months or even years - to resolve. [GN] BEN & JERRY'S: Faces Tyrnauer Class Suit Over Ethical Supply Chains ------------------------------------------------------------------- DOVID TYRNAUER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01877 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023) alleges that Ben & Jerry's sold throughout the world with ceaseless representations regarding the product's supposedly ethical supply chains, including the "Caring Dairy" and "Milk with Dignity" programs, which are human rights-centric and designed to attract consumers wishing to buy products that may be more ethically sourced, which unfortunately is not the case. According to the complaint, while Ben & Jerry's purports to use ethical supply chains and professes concern about farmworker welfare, the reality could not be further from the truth. Migrant child labor is used in Ben & Jerry's supply chains. Ben & Jerry's produces a premium priced ice cream brand by the same name, Ben & Jerry's. Ben & Jerry's wishes to have its ice cream and eat it too. It wishes to sell premium priced products with pompous virtue-signaling representations regarding its supposedly ethical sourcing all the while migrant child labor is used in its supply chains. Put simply, this is a case about greed run amok. The premiums that consumers pay for allegedly ethically-sourced products, in this instance, are not justified and constitute a breach of consumer trust through the misrepresentations that Defendant makes, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff brings this Action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated who purchased Ben & Jerry's ice cream during the applicable statutory period throughout the United States. Plaintiff Tyrnauer is, and at all relevant times was, a New York resident. Plaintiff Tyrnauer purchased Ben & Jerry's ice cream during the applicable statutory period. Plaintiff Tyrnauer was harmed when he paid for Ben & Jerry's ice cream during the applicable statutory period because had he known that migrant child labor is used in Ben & Jerry's supply chain, he either would not have purchased or would have paid less for the products sold by Defendant, the suit added.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Israel David, Esq. Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. Madeline Sheffield, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com blake.yagman@davidllc.com madeline.sheffield@davidllc.com BETMGM LLC: Faces Sale Class Suit Over Risk-Free Bet Online Sports ------------------------------------------------------------------ KENNETH SALE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BETMGM, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023) alleges that large-scale marketing of BetMGM by Defendant, including in television and print advertisements, in-arena marketing, and extensive internet and social media advertising, are and have been led with the false "free bet" or "risk-free bet" representations. In recent years, many states have legalized online sports betting and it has quickly become a multi-billion-dollar industry. In a crowded online betting marketplace, the stakes are extremely high for operators to attract new sports betting customers. BetMGM has become an industry leader in part by making untruthful and deceptive promises to lure new bettors; specifically, by advertising that the company will provide new users with a "free bet" or "risk-free bet." But these promises are far from the truth: the bet is not in any respect "free" or without risk, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff and other consumers would not have signed up for and made a so-called "free" or "risk-free" bet with BetMGM in the absence of these deceptive promises. Those advertisements contain materially deceptive representations while omitting any warnings regarding the acute and immediate risk that an initial bet is not without risk and not, in fact, "free." Those representations and omissions, which Plaintiff relied upon, are false and misleading. These marketing representations and omissions violate state consumer protection law and violate the duty of care owed, as discussed in detail below. Consumers, including the Plaintiff, were fraudulently induced to place bets with BetMGM because of its misrepresentations, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by signing up for and using BetMGM for so-called "free" or "risk-free" initial bets that actually cost them money. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and the putative Classes, because Plaintiff should not be responsible for monetary losses incurred because of bets that were promised to be "risk-free" and "free." The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, punitive damages, restitution, and an injunction on behalf of the public to prevent BetMGM from continuing to engage in their illegal practices, added the suit. BetMGM is a Delaware gambling and entertainment limited liability company with its principal place of business in Jersey City, New Jersey. As explained on its website, under the heading "Who We Are," BetMGM is a partnership between MGM Reports International and the world's largest online betting technology company, Entain Holdings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com Adam A. Schwartzbaum* - and - EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: adam@edelsberglaw.com BEYOND MEAT: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Beyond Meat Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the protein claims consumer class suit in Northern District of Illinois. From May 31, 2022 through January 13, 2023, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various federal and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of certain of the Company's products is false and/or misleading under federal and/or various states’ laws. Specifically, each of these lawsuits allege one or more of the following theories of liability: (i) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the quantitative amount of protein that is provided by each serving of the product; (ii) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the percent daily value of protein that is provided by each serving of the product; and (iii) that the Company has represented that the challenged products are "all-natural," "organic," or contain no "synthetic" ingredients when they in fact contain methylcellulose, an allegedly synthetic ingredient. The named plaintiffs of each complaint seek to represent classes of nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of the putative classes damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, among other relief. Additional complaints asserting these theories of liability are possible. Some lawsuits previously filed were voluntarily withdrawn or dismissed without prejudice; though they may be refiled. On November 14, 2022, Beyond Meat filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all pending class actions. No party opposed the motion, and the Panel held oral argument on the motion on January 26, 2023. The Panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating the pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial proceedings. The initial status conference in the multidistrict litigation is set for March 3, 2023. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted in the complaints. Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to result from these lawsuits is not estimable. 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] BLOCKFI INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC of BusinessWire reports that to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff will be until May 1, 2023 in a a class action lawsuit has been filed against Zac Prince, Flori Marquez, Amit Cheela, David Olsson, and Samia Bayou, individuals who are or were officers and directors of BlockFi, Inc. and related BlockFi entities, on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who invested in BlockFi Interest Accounts ("BIA") between March 4, 2019 to, and including, November 28, 2022 (the "Class Period"). Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Zac Prince, Flori Marquez, Amit Cheela, David Olsson, and Samia Bayou, individuals who are or were officers and directors of BlockFi, Inc. and related BlockFi entities, on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who invested in BlockFi Interest Accounts (“BIA”) between March 4, 2019 to, and including, November 28, 2022 (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/blockfi. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that BlockFi, its affiliates, and the BlockFi Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements to promote BIAs, including that BIAs were a secure method of collecting interest. In addition, the Complaint alleges that BlockFi and the BlockFi Individual Defendants omitted and concealed material information concerning the risks associated with BIAs. The Complaint further alleges BlockFi and the Individual Defendants unlawfully failed to register BIAs as securities before selling them to individual investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/blockfi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in BlockFi, you have until May 1, 2023, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] BLOCKFI INC: Misrepresents Unregistered Securities, Greene Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ TREY GREENE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZAC PRINCE, FLORI MARQUEZ, TONY LAURA, JENNIFER HILL and GEMINI TRADING, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01165 (D.N.J., Feb. 28, 2023) alleges that unregistered securities sold by the BFI Defendants on behalf of BlockFi were marketed and sold via a steady stream of misrepresentations and material omissions by Prince and Marquez over several years and through intermittent misrepresentations by Defendant Gemini. From March 4, 2019 to November 10, 2022, BlockFi, a New Jersey-based financial services company has offered and sold BlockFi unregistered BlockFi Interest Accounts to investors, through which investors can earn a return from BlockFi which deploys investors' assets in various ways. On February 14, 2022, the SEC "charged BlockFi Lending LLC with, inter alia, failing to register the offers and sales of its retail crypto lending product." The truth about Prince and Marquez' misrepresentations about BlockFi was revealed beginning on November 11, 2022, when California's financial regulator revoked BlockFi's lending license for failure to comply with California loan underwriting standards concerning the creditworthiness of borrowers and their ability to repay loans. Thereafter, additional disclosures established the extent and materiality of Prince and Marquez' misrepresentations during the Class Period. On November 10, 2022, BlockFi announced it would halt customer withdrawals and freeze account access. Thereafter the Plaintiff and class members have had no access to their investments. BlockFi made this redemption freeze announcement even more permanent and terrifying for customers when it filed for bankruptcy 18 days later on November 28, 2022, leaving customers and 100,000 creditors in the lurch, with liabilities and assets ranging from $1 billion to $10 billion. Bankruptcy filings later revealed, inter alia, that one of causes of BlockFi's failure and the loss of investors' fund was that FTX affiliated Alameda had defaulted on $680 million worth of loans to BlockFi. In its bankruptcy filing, BlockFi admitted that its lockdown of investor accounts and bankruptcy was due to its undisclosed exposure to FTX, a major cryptocurrency lender that filed a bankruptcy petition on November 16, 2021, the suit asserts. Mr. Greene invested in unregistered securities from BlockFi in the form of the BIA account. He opened an account with BlockFi in early 2020 and invested various amounts in Block Fi account holdings as set forth in Rider A. He never withdrew any amounts of his assets/ investments. Zac Prince is the CEO and co-founder of BlockFi and has been the CEO since its inception in October 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com - and - Fletcher Moore, Esq. Justin Kuehn, Esq. MOORE KUEHN, PLLC 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 709-8245 E-mail: fmoore@moorekuehn.com jkuehn@moorekuehn.com BLUE OTTER: Faces Webb Class Suit Over Biometrics Info Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- LANCE WEBB, an Illinois resident, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUE OTTER LLC d/b/a BLUE OTTER POLARIZED, a Georgia limited liability company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01187 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 27, 2023) sues the Defendant for collection without prior consent of the face geometry data of the Plaintiff and a potential class of other visitors to www.blueotterpolarized.com who used the Virtual Try- On feature, pursuant to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Defendant allegedly collects detailed and sensitive biometric identifiers and information, including complete face geometry scans, of its users through the Virtual Try-On feature, without first obtaining their consent, or informing them that this data is being collected. In addition, and in direct violation of BIPA, the Defendant also does not provide users with a schedule setting out the length of time during which their biometric information or biometric identifiers will be collected, stored, used, or will be destroyed. Further, the Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Defendant to disclose whether the Defendant has retained Plaintiff's and the Class members' biometric identifiers, how Defendant uses the Plaintiff's and the Class members' biometric identifiers, and the identities of any third parties with which Defendant shared those biometric identifiers. Approximately 3 to 4 times in June or July 2022, from his home in Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Webb visited www.blueotterpolarized.com via the Safari browser on his iPhone and iPad and used the Virtual Try-On feature to try on sunglasses products he was interested in, says the suit. Blue Otter sells sunglasses products at brick-and-mortar retail shops throughout the United States and Illinois and through its website www.blueotterpolarized.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CALIFORNIA: Abrams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of California, et al. The case is styled as Eric Abrams, Manuel Barriga, CAL FIRE Local 2881, a labor organization on behalf of itself and its members, Daniel Lopez Jr., and all others similarly situated v. State of California; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ('CAL FIRE'); California Department of Human Resources('CalHR'); Betty Yee,in her official capacity as Controller of the State of California; Eraina Ortega, in her official capacity as Director of CalHRl; Joseph Tyler, in his official capacity as Director of CAL FIRE; Does and Doe Entities 1-10, Case No. 34-2023-00335381-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 28, 2023). The case type is stated "Other Misc. Complaints." California -- https://www.ca.gov/ -- a western U.S. state, stretches from the Mexican border along the Pacific for nearly 900 miles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Messing, Esq. MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP 2150 River Plaza Dr., Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95833 CALIFORNIA: Reconsideration Bid Denial in Fitzgerald Suit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARCUS POLLARD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for reconsideration of an order granting class certification in the lawsuit entitled Rhonda Fitzgerald, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marcus Pollard, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00848-JM-NLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On May 5, 2020, Ms. Fitzgerald filed this suit in district court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that Defendants Marcus Pollard, Lieutenant C. Moore, Sergeant H. Cruz, Officer Jackson, and Officer Mann-Little (collectively "Defendants") violated her civil rights and committed torts against her. In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts: (1) a claim for violation of her Fourth Amendment right - search without reasonable suspicion against all the Defendants; (2) a claim for violation of her Fourth Amendment right - search without reasonable suspicion against Defendant Pollard and Doe 1; and (3) a claim for violation of the Fourth Amendment - failure to train and supervise against Defendant Pollard and Doe 1. Ms. Fitzgerald also brings state law claims against all the Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. On June 1, 2021, the Defendants filed an early Motion for Summary Judgment shortly after their request to bifurcate discovery was granted in part. On Sept. 15, 2021, the Court denied the Defendants' motion. On Nov. 3, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. In doing so, the Plaintiff's proposed class definition was modified and it was ordered that if this case comes to trial, it will proceed in two phases: the first to determine the common liability questions, or class issues, with individualized liability and damages issues being adjudicated in the second phase. On Nov. 17, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order on the Motion for Class Certification. On Jan. 31, 2023, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller denied the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. The Court ruled that the Defendants' arguments do not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and therefore, do not constitute grounds for the Court to alter its Class Certification Order. The appellate case is captioned Rhonda Fitzgerald v. Marcus Pollard, et al., Case No. 2380016, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 23, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent RHONDA FITZGERALD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Blair J. Berkley, Esq. Geralyn L. Skapik, Esq. SKAPIK LAW GROUP 5861 Pine Avenue Chino Hills, CA 91709 Telephone: (909) 724-8821 (909) 398-4404 Defendants-Petitioners MARCUS POLLARD, et al. are represented by: Damon Grant McClain, Esq. George R. Morris, Esq. AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 703-5750 CAMBRIDGE, ON: Faces $126-M Vaccine Mandate Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Vivian of Cambridge Today reports that one city firefighter joins class action lawsuit claiming loss of dignity, mental anguish and discrimination based on medical status. Alleging the City of Cambridge's COVID vaccine mandate for employees violated their constitutional rights, an employee on the Cambridge Fire Department is asking the court to award them $550,000 in compensation. They're part of a class action involving more than 200 plaintiffs throughout the province, largely first responders and essential workers, seeking a collective $125.95 million from a variety of defendant municipalities and taxpayer-funded service providers. "All the plaintiffs were sent home on 'leave without pay' and/or subsequently fired for refusing to take the COVID-19 'vaccines' (inoculations) whether or not they were working from home, and/or further refused to multi-weekly PCR testing in order to continue working," notes the statement of claim filed earlier this month in Toronto. "All the plaintiffs possess a conscientious and/or physical /medical reason for refusing to take the COVID-19 'vaccines' (inoculation). " None of the allegations have been tested or proven in court. At this time, no statements of defense have been filed. Efforts to reach a City of Cambridge spokesperson for comment weren't immediately successful. In the past, the city has declined to comment on matters before the courts. A similar lawsuit filed by the same lawyer against a variety of federal agencies and federally-regulated organizations was recently thrown out, with the judge calling the claims "bad beyond argument." The list of plaintiffs in this latest lawsuit includes one Cambridge firefighter. Their employment status with the city isn't referenced in the court filing. In all, there are nearly 250 plaintiffs behind the lawsuit, along with almost 50 municipalities, school boards, municipal services and individuals identified as defendants. Each of the plaintiffs are asking for $550,000 in compensation, as well as to have their employment status returned, back pay and benefits from time missed. They claim loss of their livelihood, mental anguish and distress, loss of dignity and discrimination based on their medical status. The City of Cambridge implemented its vaccine mandate in the fall of 2021, requiring all employees to provide proof they are fully vaccinated against COVID, or submit to regular testing and eduction on the benefits of vaccination. Three employees were placed on unpaid leave as a result of the action. "While 'exemptions' to these 'mandatory vaccine mandates' exist, in theory, all of the plaintiffs who sought an exemption were arbitrarily denied without reasons," the lawsuit states. "The plaintiffs further state that there is no obligation to seek any exemption before refusing the vaccines." "All the plaintiffs are ineligible for employment insurance benefits because they were dismissed for refusing the 'vaccines' (inoculations)." The lawsuit further calls on the court to declare vaccine mandates to be "not scientifically or medically based." It further raises questions about the accuracy of polymerase chain reaction tests, often referred to as PCR or rapid response tests, used by the various employers to check infection status. "The plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that there is no, and there has not been, a 'COVID-19' 'pandemic' beyond and/or exceeding the consequences of the fall-out of the pre-covid annual flu or influenza," the court filing continues. "The fact, and data is, that the COVID-19 measures have caused, to a factor of a minimum of five (5) to one (1), more deaths than the actual purported COVID-19 has caused." [GN] CBL & ASSOCIATES: Delaware Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- CBL & Associates Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Delaware shareholder class suit was voluntary dismissed on February 15, 2023. On January 12, 2023, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned John Haynes v. Charles B. Lebovitz, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0033-NAC, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Action"), naming the Company and certain directors as defendants. The Delaware Action alleged a claim against the Company for violation of Delaware General Corporation Law § 213(a) due to an improper record date for the 2022 annual meeting, and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the director defendants. The Delaware Action sought, among other things, a declaration that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, an equitable accounting, unspecified monetary relief, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants denied that any such relief was warranted, and on February 15, 2023, the Delaware Action was voluntarily dismissed. CBL and Associates Properties is a self-managed, self-administered, fully integrated real estate investment trust. It owns, develops, acquires, leases, manages, and operates regional shopping malls, outlet centers, lifestyle centers, open-air centers and other properties. CBL & ASSOCIATES: Securities Suit Ongoing in Tennessee Court ------------------------------------------------------------ CBL & Associates Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that a securities class suit is ongoing in Tennessee. The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in three putative securities class action lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during a specified period of time. Those cases were consolidated on July 17, 2019, under the caption In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 5, 2019, seeking to represent a class of purchasers from July 29, 2014 through March 26, 2019. The operative complaint filed in the Securities Class Action Litigation alleges violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's contingent liabilities, business, operations, and prospects during the period of time specified above. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages sought. On May 3, 2022, the court dismissed the Company from the Securities Class Action Litigation but declined to dismiss the individual defendants. The court also lifted the stay of the proceedings and, on June 9, 2022, entered a scheduling order. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which was opposed, was fully briefed and pending as of December 31, 2022. Following a January 31, 2023 mediation before a private mediator, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the Securities Class Action Litigation, subject to documentation and court approval. The putative settlement is expected to be fully funded by directors and officers liability insurance, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, with no contribution expected from the Company or the individual defendants. By agreeing to resolve the matter in principle, neither the Company nor any of the individual defendants are admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and they have expressly denied both. Rather, defendants entered into the agreement in principle to eliminate the risks, costs, and distractions associated with further litigation of this matter. The outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. CBL and Associates Properties is a self-managed, self-administered, fully integrated real estate investment trust. It owns, develops, acquires, leases, manages, and operates regional shopping malls, outlet centers, lifestyle centers, open-air centers and other properties. CELSIUS HOLDINGS: March 31 Final Fairness Hearing for Prescot Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Celsius Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the final Fairness Hearing for the Prescod class suit is set for March 31, 2023. In March of 2019, Daniel Prescod filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, filed on March 19, 2019, (the "Prescod Litigation"). Daniel Prescod asserts that the Company's use of citric acid in its products while simultaneously claiming "no preservatives" violates California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., and California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq., because citric acid acts as a preservative. The Company does not use citric acid as a preservative in its products, but rather as a flavoring, and therefore it believes that its "no preservatives" claim is fair and not deceptive. A motion to certify the case as a class action was filed and on August 2, 2021, that motion was granted. No fact discovery was conducted on the merits. On October 12, 2022, the Company and Mr. Prescod notified the courts that an agreement in principle to settle had been reached to resolve the case for an aggregate amount of $7.8 million. The Company and Mr. Prescod submitted the settlement agreement to the court, which entered its preliminary approval on November 23, 2022 and set a final Fairness Hearing for March 31, 2023. As of December 31, 2022, $7.8 million was accrued and included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets. Celsius Network LLC -- http://www.celsius.network/-- is a financial services company that generates revenue through cryptocurrency trading, lending, and borrowing, as well as by engaging in proprietary trading. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Failed to Protect Health Info, M.Z. Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.Z., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. and SHAUNNA ELLISON, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01049-ZNQ-LHG (D.N.J., Feb. 22, 2023) is a class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated seeking to redress Defendants' willful and reckless violations of their privacy rights. This action pertains to Defendants' unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiff's and other Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information that occurred on or around December 29, 2022. The Defendant allegedly disclosed Plaintiff's and other Class Members' PHI and PII to unauthorized persons as a direct and/or proximate result of Defendants' failure to safeguard and protect her PHI and PII. The Defendants' wrongful actions and/or inaction and the resulting breach have ultimately placed Plaintiff at an imminent, immediate and continuing increased risk of identity theft, identity fraud and medical fraud, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff and other Class Members seek all (i) actual damages, economic damages, and/or nominal damages, (ii) injunctive relief, and (iii) attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, costs and any applicable prejudgment and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff was a patient of CentraState who entrusted her protected health information and personally identifiable information to Defendants. Centrastate Healthcare System, Inc. is a non-for-profit community health organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sharon J. Zinns, Esq. ZINNS LAW, LLC 1800 Peachtree St. NW Suite 370 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 882-9002 E-mail: sharon@zinnslaw.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 1656 Washington Street, Suite 120 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Kanthal-Cubides Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO CUBIDES and LAURA KANTHAL-CUBIDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. and ATLANTIC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01075-ZNQ-LHG (D.N.J., Feb. 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The suit concerns CentraState's alleged failure to safeguard highly confidential information of patients, including Plaintiffs. On February 10, 2023, CentraState confirmed that they had suffered a ransomware attack that disrupted its computer systems. The health system detected the attack on December 29, 2022, and waited six weeks before informing the public. As a result of CentraState's actions, Plaintiffs and the Class Members experienced damages from: (i) theft of their private information and the resulting loss of privacy rights in that information; (ii) improper disclosure of their private information; (iii) loss of value of their private information; (iv) the amount of ongoing reasonable identity defense and credit monitoring services made necessary as mitigation measures; (v) CentraState's retention of profits attributable to Plaintiffs' and other customers' private information that CentraState failed to adequately protect; (vi) economic and non-economic impacts that flow from imminent, and ongoing threat of fraud and identity theft to which Plaintiffs are now exposed to; (vii) ascertainable out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time allocated to fixing or mitigating the effects of this data breach; and (viii) overpayments of CentraState's products and/or services which Plaintiffs purchased, says the suit. CentraState Healthcare System is a non-for-profit community health organization based in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cayers@seegerweiss.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com CENTRO GLASS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lozado Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ EMANUEL BERMEO LOZADO; and MIGUEL BERMEO LOZADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRO GLASS CORP.; and VICTOR ELIAS BERMEO GUZMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01680 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as general worker. CENTRO GLASS CORP. provides glass installation, work, and contracting services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com CLARIVATE PLC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Clarivate PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the dismissal motion of the defendants to the amended complaint is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Between January and March 2022, three putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Clarivate and certain of its executives and directors alleging that there were weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting and financial reporting procedures that it failed to disclose in violation of federal securities law. The complaints were consolidated into a single proceeding on May 18, 2022. On August 8, 2022, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, seeking damages on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who acquired Clarivate securities between July 30, 2020, and February 2, 2022, and/or acquired Clarivate common or preferred shares in connection with offerings on June 10, 2021, or Clarivate common shares in connection with a September 13, 2021, offering. The amended complaint, like the prior complaints, references an error in the accounting treatment of an equity plan included in the Company's 2020 business combination with CPA Global that was disclosed on December 27, 2021, and related restatements issued on February 3, 2022, of certain of the Company's previously issued financial statements; the amended complaint also alleges that the Company and certain of its executives and directors made false or misleading statements relating to the Company's product quality and expected organic revenues and organic growth rate, and that they failed to disclose significant known changes to the Company's business model. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 7, 2022. Clarivate is a global information services and analytics company serving the scientific research, intellectual property, and life sciences end-markets.[BN] CLOVER HEALTH: Bond Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ Clover Health Investments Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the class certification motion in the consolidated Bond class suit was granted by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. In February 2021, the Company and certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee captioned Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.); Kaul v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00101 (M.D. Tenn.); Yaniv v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00109 (M.D. Tenn.); and Tremblay v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00138 (M.D. Tenn.). The complaints assert violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The Kaul action asserts additional claims under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaints generally relate to allegations published in the Hindenburg Article. The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Clover securities during the class period (which begins on October 6, 2020, and, depending on the complaint, ends on February 3, 2021, or February 4, 2021), as well as certain other costs. In April 2021, the Middle District of Tennessee class actions were consolidated under Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as the lead case. On June 28, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which also generally relates to allegations published in the Hindenburg Article, but adds, among other things, allegations from confidential witnesses who purport to be former employees of the Company. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 28, 2021; that motion was denied on February 28, 2022. On February 14, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Clover Health Investments, Corp. provides Medicare Advantage plans through a software platform based in Tennessee. CONCERNED HOME: $500K Class Deal in Quintyne Suit Wins Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARJORIE QUINTYNE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCERNED HOME MANAGERS FOR THE ELDERLY, INC. d/b/a COME, Defendant, Index No. 150245/2020 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Lynn R. Kotler of the Supreme Court of New York County grants the Named Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Service Award to Named Plaintiff, and Class Counsel's Attorney's Fees and Costs. The Named Plaintiff filed the present Class Action Complaint in New York County Supreme Court on Jan. 8, 2020. The Complaint alleged that the Defendant violated the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and its supporting New York State Department Of Labor Regulations ("NYCRR") during the Class Period because the Defendant allegedly required its home health aides to work outside of their scheduled shift without compensation. Additionally, the Defendant did not compensate Aides for spread of hours when they worked more than 10 hours a day. A Negotiated Settlement Agreement and Release was executed by all parties to resolve this matter for $500,000. On Aug. 29, 2022, the Named Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval Of The Settlement Agreement And Release, Certification Of The Class For Settlement Purposes, Appointment Of The Named Plaintiff As Class Representative, Appointment Of The Law Firm Of Louis Ginsberg, P.C. As Class Counsel and Approval Of The Class Notice and Claims Form. On Oct. 28, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement And Release, certified the Class for settlement purposes, appointed the Named Plaintiff as the Class Representative, appointed the Law Firm of Louis Ginsberg, P.C. as the Class Counsel and approved the Class Notice and Claims Form. The Claims Administrator mailed the Settlement Class Notice and Claims Form to Class Members. Subsequently, the Named Plaintiff filed a Motion for Final Approval. The Defendant did not oppose the Motion. No Class Member has objected to the settlement. Having considered the Motion for Final Approval, the supporting Declaration of Louis Ginsberg, Esq., and the complete record in the matter, Judge Kotler grants the Motion for Final Approval and finally approves the settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement of $500,000. Judge Kotler certifies the following class under Article 9 of the CPLR, for settlement purposes only: All current and former home health aides who worked for Defendant in the State of New York, who are or were employed by Defendant at any time from January 8, 2014 through the date of Preliminary Approval. Judge Kotler finds reasonable the service award of $10,000 for the Named Plaintiff given the significant contributions she made to advance the prosecution and resolution of the lawsuit. This award will be paid from the settlement fund. On Oct. 28, 2022, the Court appointed the Law Firm of Louis Ginsberg, P.C. ("LG") as the Class Counsel. Judge KOtler holds that the work that the Class Counsel has performed in litigating and settling the case demonstrates their commitment to the class and to representing the best interests of the class. The Class Counsel has committed substantial resources to prosecuting the case on a fully contingent basis. Therefore, Judge Kotler grants the Class Counsel's request for attorney's fees and awards it $166,666.67, which is 33% of the settlement fund. She also awards the Class Counsel reimbursement of their litigation expenses in the amount of $506.89. The attorney's fees and the amount in reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses will be paid from the settlement fund. The Final Effective Date of the settlement will be 30 days following the Order if no appeal is taken from the Order. If a party appeals the Order, the Final Effective Date of the settlement will be the day after all appeals are finally resolved in favor of final approval. Within 30 days after the motion for final approval is granted, the Claims Administrator will pay: a. the Class Counsel attorneys' fees of $166,666.67 from the settlement fund; b. the Class Counsel for litigation costs and expenses totaling $506.89 from the settlement fund; c. the service award of $10,000 for the Named Plaintiff; and d. the remainder of the settlement fund (after subtracting for the attorney's fees, and expenses, the Named Plaintiff's service award, and the agreed upon Claims Administrator's fees which are also approved), to the Authorized Claimants in accordance with the allocation plan described in the Settlement Agreement. The Court retains jurisdiction over the action for the purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement and overseeing the distribution of settlement funds. The parties will abide by all terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order. The litigation will be dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckja2tt from Leagle.com. CORECIVIC INC: Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari in Owino ------------------------------------------------------------------ CORECIVIC, INC. filed on February 21, 2023, a request to extend the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari from March 20, 2023 to April 19, 2023. The petition for writ of certiorari seeks U.S. Supreme Court to review of the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case captioned as Sylvester Owino, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. CoreCivic, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-55221. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in 2017, Plaintiffs Sylvester Owino and Jonathan Gomez brought a class action suit against CoreCivic. The Plaintiffs were previously held in a civil immigration detention facility operated by CoreCivic -- Owino from 2005 to 2015, and Gomez from 2012 to 2013. They filed suit "on behalf of all civil immigration detainees who were incarcerated and forced to work by CoreCivic," seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, among other remedies, for "forcing/coercing detainees to clean, maintain, and operate CoreCivic's detention facilities in violation of both federal and state human trafficking and labor laws." Specifically, Owino alleged violations of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 18 U.S.C. Section 1589 et seq. ("TVPA"), California Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.5 ("CTVPA"), various provisions of the California Labor Code, and other state laws. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's certification of three classes. It held that CoreCivic retains its personal jurisdiction defense and remands the personal jurisdiction question to the district court for consideration at the appropriate juncture. The appellate case is captioned CoreCivic, Inc., Applicant vs. Sylvester Owino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Case No. 22A767, in the Supreme Court of United States, filed on February 23, 2023. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner CORECIVIC, INC. is represented by: Roman Martinez, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: roman.martinez@lw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker's $6.15-Mil. L&K Settlement Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued a Final Judgment and Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the $6.15 million class settlement with two Defendants in the lawsuit titled BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.). The Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing their Complaint on Feb. 27, 2019, and ultimately filed a Third Amended Complaint on April 30, 2020. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants violated the Lanham Act by misleadingly labeling and selling coffee not from the Kona region as "Kona" coffee. On Nov. 12, 2019, the Court denied motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' original complaint and discovery began. The Plaintiffs have negotiated a class action settlement with Defendants L&K Coffee Co., LLC and Kevin Kihnke. The Settlement Agreement was attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of counsel accompanying the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed on Sept. 29, 2022. Through the Settlement Agreement, L&K will fully and completely satisfy the claims of Class Members relating to the claims alleged by the Plaintiffs in the Third Amended Complaint by paying the Class Members a total payment of $6.15 million, and provide injunctive relief relating to the labeling of the Kona coffee products at issue. Attorneys' fees and costs of Class Counsel and administrative costs will be paid from the Settlement Fund. By entering into the Settlement Agreement, L&K made no admissions relating to the claims raised in this lawsuit, nor did the Plaintiffs make admissions relating to L&K's Defenses. The Settlement Class, as defined in each of the Settlement Agreements, includes the following: All persons and entities who, between Feb. 27, 2015, and the date of Court's order granting preliminary approval to the settlement (Oct. 4, 2022), farmed Kona coffee in the Kona District and then sold their Kona coffee. Excluded from the Settlement Class are any Defendants to the action, as well as any judge assigned to the action, and the judge's immediate family and staff. The Settlement Agreement describes the claims that are being settled on behalf of the Class. The Settlement Agreement and its terms, including the definitions, are incorporated into this Final Judgment And Order of Dismissal as if fully set forth herein. The Settlement Agreement and Final Judgment will be referred to collectively herein as the "Settlement." The Court entered an order dated Oct. 4, 2022, directing that notice of the proposed Settlement be effectuated as to the Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"). The Preliminary Approval Order set a hearing for Feb. 16, 2023, to determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. In general accordance with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Administrator caused to be mailed to potential members of the Settlement Class for whom addresses could be located, a notice (the "Settlement Notice") in the form approved by the Court in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court did not receive any objections to the Settlement from class members. L&K caused to be mailed to the appropriate federal and state officials the materials required to be submitted by the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Court finds that CAFA's notice requirements have been satisfied. On Feb. 16, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the proposed Settlement, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard. The Court grants the motion for final approval of the Settlement. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs showed that they were likely to satisfy the requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b). The Court has now determined that certification is warranted. The Court finds no reason to disturb those conclusions. The Court finds the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. Therefore, the Settlement is approved in all respects, and will be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, all members of the Settlement Class. All Settled Claims, including the claims asserted against Kevin Kihnke, are dismissed with prejudice. This Final Judgment may not be used as an admission by or against L&K or Kevin Kihnke of any fact, claim, assertion, matter, contention, fault, culpability, obligation, wrongdoing or liability whatsoever. The Court has, by separate order, granted Class Counsel's "Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses." The amount of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses awarded to Class Counsel will be distributed to Class Counsel by the Settlement Administrator from the Settlement Funds. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2kvdkk6h from Leagle.com. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker's Counsel Awarded $3-Mil. in Fees & Costs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards in the lawsuit styled BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.). The Plaintiffs have presented a class action settlement with Defendant L&K Coffee Co., LLC for the Court's approval. The settlement includes monetary relief totaling $6.15 million, and injunctive provisions that institute labeling changes for the products supplied and sold by L&K. Class Counsel have requested attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,029,500, or 33 percent of the settlement fund. Judge Lasnik finds that the requested fees are fair and reasonable under the circumstances. First, the results obtained by Class Counsel are excellent. In addition to the substantial monetary component, the settlement provides for meaningful injunctive relief in the form of practice changes on the part of L&K. Second, the Court finds that the complexity of this case presented unusual risks, particularly in a contingent fee case. Third, the Court has considered the benefits to the Settlement Class beyond the cash component of the settlement. The Court finds that the injunctive relief provisions of the settlement support the requested fee. Fourth, the Court has considered other cases involving the creation of both a cash fund and valuable injunctive relief, and finds that the requested fee is consistent with awards in analogous cases. The Court grants Class Counsel's request of a fee of $2,029,500 to be paid from the Settlement Funds generated by the settlement. Class Counsel has also requested reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $970,500. The Court has reviewed Class Counsel's costs and finds that they were reasonably incurred, and accordingly, grants reimbursement of $970,500 from the Settlement Funds. Class Counsel requests service awards of $2,500 for each farm whose owners have served as class representatives in this litigation: Rancho Aloha, Kanalani Ohana Farm, and Smithfarms. Judge Lasnik finds the requested awards are fair and reasonable. Each class representative invested substantial amounts of time in this case and have made significant contributions to the case on behalf of the members of the Settlement Class. The Court, accordingly, awards each farm the requested service awards of $2,500. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrwx2a59 from Leagle.com. DAVEY TREE: Luna Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANGEL LUNA individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23CV00040, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Cruz County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 23, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00822 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, eight total causes of action, seven of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. Davey Tree Surgery Company provides horticultural services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ruth Zadikany, Esq. Elisabeth M. Anderson, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 E-mail: rzadikany@mayerbrown.com eanderson@mayerbrown.com - and - Charles E. Harris, II, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 Facsimile: (312) 701-7711 E-mail: charris@mayerbrown.com DESHI SENIOR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Saaba Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sawsan Abi Saaba, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Deshi Senior Center, LLC, and Misbah Abdeen, Case No. 1:23-cv-01685 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 5, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law, and liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants’ conduct extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants failed to provide accurate wage notices and accurate wage statements, denying the Plaintiff her statutory right to receive true and accurate information about the nature of her employment and related compensation policies, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff was employed as a general worker at Deshi Senior Center, from November 2020 to January 24, 2023. Deshi is a Social Adult Day Care center for elderly people.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com DESKTOP METAL: Continues to Defend Campanella Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Desktop Metal Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Campanella consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On November 22, 2021, purported stockholder Pietro Campanella filed a class action lawsuit against ExOne, Desktop Metal, Inc., and former ExOne directors and officers alleging breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the ExOne Merger (Campanella v. The ExOne Company et al., Case No. 2021-1013, Case No. 2021-1013-LWW). In particular, Mr. Campanella alleges that ExOne’s proxy statement and supplemental disclosures did not adequately disclose information related to a whistleblower investigation at one of Desktop Metal's subsidiaries, EnvisionTEC, and the resignation of EnvisionTEC's CEO. On December 21, 2021, January 14, 2022, February 2, 2022 and February 22, 2022, four alleged shareholders of Desktop Metal stock filed purported securities class action complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. (Luongo v. Desktop Metal, D. Mass., Case No. 1:21-cv-12099-IT; Hathaway v. Desktop Metal, D. Mass., Case No. 1:22-cv-10059-IT; Guzman-Martinez v. Desktop Metal, D. Mass, Case No. 1:22-cv-10173, Xie v. Desktop Metal, Case No. 1:22-cv-10297-IT). Each complaint alleges that Desktop Metal and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements regarding EnvisionTEC’s manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures. On February 4, 2022, the court issued an order consolidating the first three District of Massachusetts securities class actions. On July 7, 2022, the court appointed Sophia Zhou lead plaintiff for the class period of February 17, 2021 through November 15, 2021. The court also vacated its earlier order consolidating the Xie action with the other lawsuits and will allow that action to proceed separately, with a new notice to investors, based on a class period of January 15, 2021 to February 16, 2021. On September 29, 2022, the Court re-consolidated the Xie action with the other actions for all pre-trial proceedings. The Company believes that these complaints are all without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. Desktop Metal, Inc. is pioneering a new generation of additive manufacturing technologies based in Massachusetts. DLOCAL LIMITED: Faces Hunt Class Suit Over 50% Common Stock Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES HUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DLOCAL LIMITED, COGENCY GLOBAL INC., SEBASTIAN KANOVICH, DIEGO CABRERA CANAY, ALBERTO EDUARDO AZAR, ANDRES BZUROVSKI BAY, SERGIO ENRIQUE FOGEL KAPLAN, LUIZ O. RIBEIRO, MARTIN ESCOBARI, TEREZA GROSSI, JACOBO SINGER, JITENDRA GUPTA, COLLEEN A. DEVRIES, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, CITI GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., and UBS SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 651058/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 28, 2023) is securities class action on behalf of persons who purchased, or otherwise acquired, DLocal Class A Common Shares pursuant or traceable to the F-1 Registration Statement and related prospectus on Form 424B1 issued in connection with DLocal's June 2021 initial public stock offering. The action asserts non-fraud, strict liability claims under §§11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, against DLocal, certain DLocal officers and directors, the underwriters of the IPO, and DLocal's U.S. representatives. In June 2021, Defendants commenced DLocal's IPO, issuing over 33.8 million shares at $21.00 per share, including the full exercise of the Underwriter Defendants' option to purchase additional shares, all pursuant to the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement repeatedly touts Dlocal's supposed “growing and deepening relationships” with new and existing global merchant clients. The Registration Statement's numerous representations about DLocal's TPV and its internal controls over financial reporting, however, allegedly contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts both required by governing regulations and necessary to make the statements made not misleading. Specifically, the Registration Statement misrepresents the TPV derived from new merchants in DLocal's 2019 and 2020 cohorts, which, at the time of the IPO, were severely lower than what the Registration Statement reported, as well as the fact that the remediation plan DLocal implemented before the IPO was patently defective and, thus, incapable of improving the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, says the suit. On November 16, 2022, Muddy Waters published a report that called into question the TPV derived from new merchants in 2019 and 2020. Muddy Waters observed that the TPV attributed to DLocal's 2019 cohort and 2020 cohort had dropped to $56 million and $260 million respectively. Consequently, the TPV derived from the cohort of enterprise merchants that began using DLocal's products in 2019 (i.e., new merchants) did not (and could not) grow by 209%. On this news, DLocal's common stock plummeted over 50% in a single day, to close at $10.46 per share on November 16, 2022. By the commencement of this action, DLocal's shares traded as low $9.03 per share, representing a decline of over 57% from the $21 IPO offering price. As a result, investors have lost hundreds of millions of dollars, the suit asserts. DLocal is a Montevideo, Uruguay-based financial technology company that provides cross-border payments connecting global merchants to emerging markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq. Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com rswartz@scott-scott.com jzimmerman@scott-scott.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (310) 388-0192 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com EAST JORDAN: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Wilson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EAST JORDAN PLASTICS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00205 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 27, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid agreed upon wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan's Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, as well as liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant allegedly operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from the Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed; and (2) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift differentials, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes. In October 2020, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Maintenance Technician working at Defendant's Beaverton Facility. East Jordan manufactures thermoformed and injection molded horticultural containers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. Paul M. Secunda, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Lowe Class Suit Over Tampons' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIGETTE LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00834-LB (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2023) is a civil class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of consumers who purchased o.b. Organic (TM) tampons for personal hygiene purposes. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has intentionally designed the front and back package label representations on the Tampon Products, in order to lead reasonable consumers to believe that the Tampon Products are a healthy product for absorbing menstrual fluid, and that they do not contain any chemicals that are potentially harmful to women's health. The Organic Representations appear prominently on the front of the Tampon Products' packaging label, which contains the word "organic" twice, once in large font in the center of the package and another time as part of the representation that that Tampon Products are "100% Organic Cotton," the Plaintiff says. Accordingly, despite Edgewell's consistent and pervasive marketing of the Tampon Products as Organic, the Plaintiff's independent testing has shown that the Tampon Products contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), a category of human-made chemicals with a toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative nature which are associated with numerous health concerns. The presence of PFAS chemicals in the Tampon Products is entirely inconsistent with Edgewell's uniform Organic Representations. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's acts, including its affirmative misrepresentations, false statements and material omissions, the Plaintiff has incurred economic injuries including financial damages at the point-of-sale stemming from her purchase of and/or overpayment for the Tampon Products, in addition to the loss of the benefit of her bargain and the Tampon Products' intended benefits, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Lowe has purchased o.b. tampons for nearly three decades. Edgewell designs, manufactures, advertises, distributes, and sells personal care products, including the Tampon Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Pearson, Esq. Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: mpearson@pwfirm.com mweiner@pwfirm.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. Harper T. Segui, Esq. Erin J. Ruben, Esq. Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLP 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com hsegui@milberg.com eruben@milberg.com tpacheco@milberg.com EHEALTH INC: Judgment Motions Pleadings Hearing Set for April 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- eHealth Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the judgment motions pleadings hearing for securities class suit is set for April 13, 2023. On April 8, 2020 and April 30, 2020, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its then-chief executive officer, Scott N. Flanders, its then-chief financial officer, Derek N. Yung, and its then-chief operating officer, David K. Francis in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases are captioned Patel v. eHealth, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.) and Bertrand v. eHealth, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal.). The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information regarding the Company's accounting and modeling assumptions, rate of member churn and the Company's profitability during the alleged class period of March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020. The complaints allege that the specified defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek compensatory and (in the Patel lawsuit) punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On June 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the above-referenced matters under the caption In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.). The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated matter. An Amended Complaint was filed on August 25, 2020, which Defendants moved to dismiss on October 23, 2020. Defendants' motion, which Plaintiff opposed, was granted in part and denied in part on August 12, 2021. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims to the extent premised upon alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to churn, but denied Defendant's motion with respect to alleged misstatements regarding purported operating costs. On October 1, 2021, the Company filed an Answer denying in part and admitting in part the remaining allegations, and denying any wrongdoing. On November 11, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a suggestion of death with respect to the lead plaintiff Billy White. Plaintiff's counsel published notice regarding the appointment of a new lead plaintiff on January 17, 2022. On November 9, 2022, the Court appointed Chicago & Vicinity Laborers’ District Council Pension Fund as the new lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's selection of counsel. On November 29, 2022, the new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel filed a supplement to the amended complaint, replacing the names of the prior lead plaintiff and counsel and incorporating new lead plaintiff’s previously filed certification. On December 22, 2022, the Company, Mr. Flanders, and Mr. Yung moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining claims. Mr. Francis also moved for judgment on the pleadings the same day, and joined the motion by the Company, Mr. Flanders, and Mr. Yung. The motions for judgment on the pleadings were fully briefed by February 9, 2023, and are scheduled for a hearing on April 13, 2023. eHealth, Inc. provides private health insurance exchange services to individuals, families, and small businesses in the United States and China. The company operates through two segments, Medicare; and Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc. was incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. ELANCO ANIMAL: Bid to Junk Saffron Class Suit Opposed ----------------------------------------------------- Elanco Animal Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Saffron shareholder class suit dismissal motion by defendants. On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Saffron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco, certain executives, and other individuals and entities. On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding an additional plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's relationships with third party distributors and revenue attributable to those distributors within the registration statement on Form S-3 dated January 21, 2020 and accompanying prospectus filed in connection with Elanco’s public offering which closed on or about January 27, 2020. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or 5.00% TEUs issued in connection with the public offering. From February 2021 to August 2022, this case was stayed in deference to Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc. On October 24, 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 23, 2022. The Company believes the claims made in the case are meritless, and intends to vigorously defend its position. Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana, Elanco Animal Health Inc. is a global manufacturer of animal health products. The company develops, manufactures and markets products for a variety of companion and food animals. Elanco revenue, pro forma for the legacy Bayer business approximated $4.4 billion in 2020. EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emergent BioSolutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On April 20, 2021, May 14, 2021, and June 2, 2021, putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former senior officers in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These complaints were filed by Palm Tran, Inc. – Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan; Alan I. Roth; and Stephen M. Weiss, respectively. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's manufacturing capabilities with respect to COVID-19 vaccine bulk drug substance (referred to herein as "CDMO Manufacturing Capabilities"). These cases were consolidated on December 23, 2021, under the caption In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:21-cv-00955-PWG (the "Federal Securities Class Action"). The Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated matter are Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan and The City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Firefighters' Retirement System. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 19, 2022 and the Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on July 19, 2022. The defendants believe that the allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to defend the matters vigorously. Headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland, Emergent BioSolutions Inc. is a life sciences company that provides pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical devices and contract manufacturing services related to public health threats affecting civilian and military populations. ENVIVA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------------- Enviva Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in federal district court in the District of Maryland. On November 3, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the District of Maryland against Enviva, John Keppler, and Shai Even. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegations that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies, particularly relating to its ESG practices. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Company's statements were misleading as to the environmental sustainability of the Company's wood pellet production and procurement and the impact such statements would have on the Company's financials and growth potential. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest and costs, and attorneys' fees. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed on January 31, 2023, and their amended complaint is due to be filed on or before April 3, 2023. Enviva has insurance coverage that, we believe, will cover some or all of its liabilities related to the defense of this matter. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot be certain that its coverage will be adequate for liabilities actually incurred. Enviva believes the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the matter. Enviva, formerly known as Enviva Partners, LP, develops, constructs, acquires, and owns and operates, fully contracted wood pellet production plants.[BN] FCA US: Class Settlement in Moran Suit Gets Final Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALFONSO and ARLENE MORAN, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-02594-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jinsook Ohta of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Having considered the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and attachments thereto, having received no objections to the proposed Class Settlement, having held a final fairness hearing on Feb. 15, 2023, and having carefully considered all of the submissions and arguments of the parties, Judge Ohta finds that the Settlement satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in all respects and is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judge Ohta finds the Settlement provides substantial benefits to the Class, including the following: (a) The Defendant expanded the Class Vehicles' 5-year/60,000-mile powertrain warranty to include the crankshaft position sensor, thereby extending coverage for repair or replacement of engine crankshaft synchronization sensors; (b) The Settlement provides for reimbursement to the Class Members for their out-of-pocket costs paid to repair their Class Vehicle's crankshaft position sensors if the Class Members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles more than five years before the Effective Date of Settlement and before the Class Vehicle reached 60,000 miles; (c) FCA will certify that all replacement crankshaft position sensors installed from the date of Final Settlement Approval are Part Number 68079375AD, or a subsequent iteration; and (d) The Class Members are entitled to an expedited, binding Arbitration for claims seeking a vehicle repurchase or replacement based in whole or in part on alleged defects in the Class Vehicles related to stalling. The Settlement is particularly beneficial and appropriate when considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the claims and defenses asserted, and the risks of non-recovery or reduced recovery, non-class certification, and potential recovery delays associated with continued litigation of these claims. There are approximately 725,817 Settlement Class Members. Judge Ohta determines that the 88 requests for exclusion collectively identified in the Supplemental Declaration of Jeremy Talavera dated February 20, 2023, are invalid because they are late and/or deficient. These requests for exclusion are rejected. For these reasons, Judge Ohta certifies, for the purpose of this Settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of the following: All current residents of the United States (including territories of the United States) who, prior to the Preliminary Approval Date, purchased or leased new 2017-2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles equipped with a 3.6-liter V6 engine and a 9-speed automatic transmission that were originally sold in the United States (including territories of the United States). The Settlement Agreement submitted by the Parties is, in all respects, finally approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(e) as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Settlement Class. Excluded from the Settlement and Release, on the basis of their timely and valid requests for exclusion, are the 194 Settlement Class Members identified in the Declaration of Jeremy Talavera. All other requests for exclusion are rejected. The Parties are directed to perform all obligations under the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms. The Parties and each person or entity within the Settlement Class are bound in all respects by the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to the Released Claims against all Released Parties contained therein, except for those persons or entities who have duly and timely excluded themselves from the Settlement. The Action is dismissed, with prejudice and without costs. The Final Approval Order has been entered without any admission by any Party as to the merits of any allegation in the Action and will not constitute a finding of either fact or law as to the merits of any claim or defense that was or could have been asserted in the Action. The Released Claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, are fully, finally, and forever deemed released, discharged, acquitted, compromised, settled, and dismissed with prejudice against Defendant and all Released Parties. Judge Ohta, having conditionally appointed Plaintiffs Alfonso and Arlene Moran as representatives of the Settlement Class in the Preliminary Approval Order, grants final approval of, and appoints, Alfonso and Arlene Moran as the Settlement Class Representatives. She approves and awards $10,000 to each Plaintiff for their services on behalf of the Class. In addition, having conditionally appointed the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class in the Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Ohta grants final approval of, and appoints, the law firm of Capstone Law APC as the Class Counsel. Having conditionally approved CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator, Judge Ohta further grants final approval of, and appoints, CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator to effectuate its duties and responsibilities set forth in the Settlement Agreement. After the Effective Date, the Defendant may retain a different Claims Administrator with the agreement of the Class Counsel, or, absent agreement, with approval of the Court on a showing of good cause. Judge Ohta has carefully reviewed, and approves, the request for a service award of $10,000 each to Plaintiffs Alfonso and Arlene Moran as reasonable payments for their efforts as Settlement Class Representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class, said service award to be paid by the Defendant in the manner provided in the Settlement Agreement. In addition, Judge Ohta has carefully reviewed, and approves, the Class Counsel's request for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the collective combined total amount of $835,000, which amount will be paid by the Defendant within the time, and in the manner, set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonably necessary extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Order, and any obligations thereunder. The Plaintiffs and each and every Settlement Class Member (other than the 194 Settlement Class Members who submitted timely and valid requests for exclusion, the), are permanently barred and enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any action, suit, proceeding, claim, or cause of action asserting the Released Claims in any court or before any tribunal. All Class Members who have not made their objections to the Settlement in the manner provided in the Class Notice are deemed to have waived any objections by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise. Without affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment thereon in any away, the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties, and will have continuing jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Ohta finds that no just reason exists for delay in entering the Final Judgment. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to enter Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Final Approval Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yzc5kc68 from Leagle.com. FEDERAL EXPRESS: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wiessner of WTVB reports that the justices denied a petition by FedEx security specialist Christa Fischer for review of a July ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said because her overtime pay lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania, only workers from that state could join in the case-captioned Fischer v. Federal Express Corp, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-396. U.S. Supreme Court won't decide scope of wage-and-hour class actions The U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 2023 again declined to settle a split among appeals courts over whether federal wage law allows workers to bring nationwide class action-style lawsuits, turning away a case involving FedEx Corp. The justices denied a petition by FedEx security specialist Christa Fischer for review of a July ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said because her overtime pay lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania, only workers from that state could join. Companies and business groups have been pushing courts to limit nationwide wage-and-hour lawsuits, citing a 2017 Supreme Court ruling that said people who lived outside California could not join a product liability case filed in state court against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. The 3rd Circuit in the FedEx case joined the 6th and 8th Circuits, which in 2021 had both said courts lack jurisdiction over residents of other states. But the 1st and 7th Circuits have gone the other way, saying the wage law was designed to enable large-scale collective actions against companies operating in multiple states. The Supreme Court last year declined to take up appeals of those cases. Tennessee-based FedEx did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did lawyers for Fischer. Fischer in a 2019 lawsuit in Philadelphia federal court alleged FedEx misclassified security specialists across the country as independent contractors rather than its employees and deprived them of overtime pay required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Under the FLSA, workers can file "collective actions" that are similar to class action lawsuits but have some key procedural differences, including that other workers must opt in to be included. A federal judge in 2020 refused to allow FedEx employees from New York and Maryland to join the case, citing the Bristol-Myers ruling. The 3rd Circuit upheld that ruling last year, prompting Fischer's Supreme Court petition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest business lobby, had urged the 3rd Circuit to rule for FedEx. In a 2021 amicus brief, the group said allowing nationwide FLSA lawsuits would subject employers to uncertainty and encourage workers to "forum shop" by filing in plaintiff-friendly courts. The case is Fischer v. Federal Express Corp, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-396. For Fischer: Adam Hansen of Apollo Law For FedEx: David Salmons of Morgan Lewis & Bockius[GN] FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ein Newsdesk reports that if you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida no later than May 5, 2023 in the case-captioned Palm Bay Police and Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., No. 23-cv-252 (M.D. Fla.). Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. ("Fidelity National" or the "Company") (NYSE: FIS) and certain of its current and former executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Fidelity National common stock between February 9, 2021 and February 10, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Saxena White is captioned: Palm Bay Police and Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., No. 23-cv-252 (M.D. Fla.). Fidelity National provides global e-commerce and payment technologies to financial institutions and businesses and, in recent years, has become the largest processing and payments company in the world. The Company's Merchant Solutions segment, which accounted for approximately 30% of Fidelity National's total revenue in 2021, serves merchants by enabling them to accept, authorize, and settle electronic payment transactions. On July 31, 2019, Fidelity National announced it had completed the acquisition of payments company Worldpay, Inc. ("Worldpay") for $43 billion, which became part of the Fidelity National Merchant Solutions business. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants assured investors that the integration of Worldpay was "ahead of schedule," achieved "success in revenue synergies," and ultimately was "successfully completed." The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants misled investors and/or failed to disclose that (1) the integration of Worldpay was not ahead of schedule; (2) the integration of Worldpay was not successfully completed during the Class Period; (3) the increases in revenue synergies were not driven by the Worldpay integration; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's financial guidance, business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on August 4, 2022, when Fidelity National announced that its Chief Financial Officer James Woodall planned to "step down." In response to this news, shares of Fidelity National declined approximately 7%, from a closing price of $104.13 per share on August 3, 2022, to a closing price of $96.57 per share on August 4, 2022. Then, on November 3, 2022, the Company announced disappointing results for the third quarter of 2022, including that profit margins in the Merchant Solutions business "saw continued pressure in the quarter" resulting "in an overall adjusted EBITDA margin contracting 150 points year-on-year." In response to this news, shares of Fidelity National declined approximately 28%, from a closing price of $79.47 per share on November 2, 2022, to a closing price of $57.18 per share on November 3, 2022. Finally, on February 13, 2023, Fidelity National announced that it would be spinning off Worldpay and recording a goodwill impairment charge of $17.6 billion related to its Merchants Solutions business. In response to this news, shares of Fidelity National declined approximately 12%, from a closing price of $75.43 per share on the prior trading day of February 10, 2023, to a closing price of $66.00 per share on February 13, 2023. If you purchased Fidelity National common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida no later than May 5, 2023. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. CONTACT INFORMATION Lester Hooker, Esq. lhooker@saxenawhite.com Saxena White P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Tel: (561) 206-6708 Fax: (561) 394-3382 www.saxenawhite.com [GN] FIRE & ICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooper Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- DEMITRUS COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRE & ICE TRUCKING, CORP.; CHERYL OWENS; and PEDRO J. FORTUNATO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01675 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Cooper was employed by the Defendant as driver. FIRE & ICE TRUCKING, CORP. is a trucking company running freight hauling business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com FRANCISCO URENA: Faces Terenzio Suit Over COVID-19-Related Deaths ----------------------------------------------------------------- DELMA TERENZIO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph A. Terenzio, THOMAS SULLIVAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John J. Sullivan, EDWARD POULIN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Maurice C. Poulin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. FRANCISCO URENA, MARYLOU SUDDERS, CHERYL LUSSIER POPPE, JOHN DOE 1, JANE DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2 and JANE DOE 2, Case No. 1:23-cv-10462-IT (D. Mass., Feb. 27, 2023) is a civil rights class action lawsuit arising out of: 1) the COVID-19-related deaths of at least 31 military veterans who resided at the Soldiers’ Home in Chelsea (‘SHC”) in 2020; 2) the injuries sustained by numerous veterans who contracted COVID-19 at the SHC in 2020; and 3) the harm sustained by numerous veterans who lived at the SHC from March 1, 2020 to the present as a result of unsanitary, unfit, and unacceptable living conditions. All of these veterans served their country with valor and distinction. Many of these veterans were highly decorated and had received awards, commendations and medals for their incredible bravery, courage, heroism and accomplishments serving their country during wartime. In and after March of 2020, the defendants were obligated to protect, supervise and provide appropriate services and living conditions for the veterans who resided at the SHC. The defendants were deliberately and/or recklessly indifferent to the needs and constitutional rights of Mr. Terenzio, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Poulin and their fellow veterans at the SHC. The defendants' reckless indifference included the following egregious and callous acts or omissions: a. Failing to properly consider and respond to the risks associated with the COVID-19 virus; b. Failing to adopt and/or implement appropriate protocols or procedures to address or mitigate the grave risks posed by the COVID-19 virus; c. Failing to properly educate employees and residents of the SHC concerning the risks associated with the COVID-19 virus; d. Failing to prevent or properly respond to an outbreak of the COVID-19 virus at the SHC; e. Failing to take appropriate steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within the patient/resident population at the SHC; f. Failing to ensure that the employees or staff of the SHC had appropriate PPE (including masks, gloves and gowns); g. Failing to ensure that sick, ill or contagious employees or staff at the SHC were quarantined or denied admission to the SHC; and h. Allowing sick, ill or contagious employees or staff to continue to work at the SHC. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions and deliberate indifference of the defendants, Mr. Terenzio, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Poulin and at least 28 of their fellow veterans died premature and preventable deaths from COVID-19. Additionally, numerous other veterans residing at the SHC were unnecessarily exposed to COVID-19, developed complications and were compelled to receive care and treatment for their conditions. Further, numerous other veterans residing at the SHC since March 2020 have suffered harm as a result of the unsanitary, unfit, and unacceptable living conditions at the SHC and/or the less than minimally adequate services at the SHC, the lawsuit contends. Francisco Urena, is the former Secretary of the Massachusetts Department of Veterans’ Services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony J. Antonellis, Esq. John A. Donovan III, Esq. Christopher M. Reilly, Esq. Sloane and Walsh, LLP 201 Washington Street, Ste. 1600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 523-6010 E-mail: aantonellis@sloanewalsh.com jdonovan@sloanewalsh.com creilly@sloanewalsh.com FRITANGA EL CHELE: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Soza Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CINTHYA Y. SOZA and other similarly-situated individuals v. FRITANGA EL CHELE, INC, JORGE M. NAVAS, and GUADALUPE M. NAVAS, Individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-20756 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. The Plaintiff worked her first two weeks seven days per week, a total of 67.5 hours, and she was paid $280.00 per week. For the following three weeks, the Plaintiff worked six days per week on the same schedule with one day off during the week. Plaintiff was paid $420.00 weekly. She also did not take bonafide lunchtime hours. On September 7, 2023, the Plaintiff complained to the owner of the business Jorge M. Navas. She demanded to be paid for overtime hours and at least minimum wages, and she was fired. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours, but she was not paid the minimum wage rate and overtime hours as required by law. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and a half her regular rate for every hour that she worked in excess of 40, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff was hired as a Kitchen helper and cleaning person. She had multiple additional duties doing general restaurant work. Fritanga El is a Nicaraguan restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com FUNKO INC: Settlement in Ferreira Stockholder Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Funko Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval to the Ferreira stockholder class suit settlement on November 7, 2022. On March 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of our officers, entitled Ferreira v. Funko, Inc. et al. The original complaint alleged that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The lawsuit sought, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Two additional complaints making substantially similar allegations were filed April 3, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and April 9, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, respectively. On June 11, 2020, the Central District of California actions were consolidated for all purposes into one action under the Ferreira caption, and lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; shortly thereafter, the Western District of Washington action was voluntarily dismissed. Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 31, 2020, against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, as well as entities affiliated with ACON. The consolidated complaint added Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims based on our earnings announcement and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2019, as well as claims under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action and the Court granted all defendants' motions to dismiss the Ferreira action on February 25, 2021, allowing the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 29, 2021 and all defendants moved to dismiss. On October 25, 2021, the Court issued an order granting defendants' motion in part and denying the motion in part. On May 3, 2022, the parties agreed in principle to settle the litigation. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 17, 2022 and granted final approval on November 7, 2022. The cost of settlement was paid through our director and officer liability insurance. Funko, Inc. is a toy manufacturer, with principal executive offices located at 2802 Wetmore Avenue, Everett, Washington. [BN] GNC HOLDINGS: Faces Mercado Suit Over Total Lean Bars' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER MERCADO and MONICA ESPAILLAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GNC HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01572 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2023) alleges that the Defendant engaged in widespread false and deceptive advertising on its Total Lean Lean Bars by claiming the Products are "lean." Every package of the Products prominently features the words "Total Lean." However, the Products do not comply with 21 C.F.R. 101.62(e) and therefore do not meet such warranties. Accordingly, the Products are not lean because they do not contain any less fat than other traditional protein Products, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs and Class Members relied to their detriment on Defendant's representation that the Products are "lean" and therefore would contain a low amount of fat. They would not have paid to purchase Defendant's Products–or would not have paid as much as they did to purchase them– had they known that they were not, in fact, "lean" and contained significant amounts of fat. Specifically, the Product contained 12 grams of fat per 100 grams of Product, 2 grams over the statutory limit, says the suit. In October 2022, Plaintiff Espaillat and Plaintiff Mercado purchased Defendant's Total Lean Lean Bar in the Strawberry Yogurt flavor for her personal use from GNC in Manhattan, New York. GNC manufactures, sells, and/or distributes health and fitness related products and operates thousands of retail locations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@milberg.com gklinger@milberg.com GOODRX HOLDINGS: Terenzini Class Suit Closed --------------------------------------------- GoodRx Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2023, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California closed the Terenzini class suit on December 31, 2022. On December 18, 2020, R. Brian Terenzini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:20-cv-11444). On January 8, 2021, Bryan Kearney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, also filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-00175). The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages as well as interest, fees and costs. The complaints alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and asserted that we failed to disclose to investors that Amazon.com, Inc. was developing its own mobile and online prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would compete directly with us. According to the complaints, when Amazon announced its competitor service, our stock price fell, causing investor losses. On April 8, 2021, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In re GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (Case No. 2:20-cv-11444) and appointed Betty Kalmanson, Lawrence Kalmanson, Shawn Kalmanson, and Janice Kasbaum as Lead Plaintiffs. On June 9, 2022, the court dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice and the consolidated case was closed as of December 31, 2022. On April 29, 2021, May 5, 2021 and September 15, 2021, Neesha Patel, Wayne Geist and Alan Pinyavat, respectively, each filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of us against certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-03671, Case No. 2:21-cv-03829 and Case No. 1:21-cv-01309, respectively). The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and contribution under the Exchange Act. Neesha Patel asserted additional claims for unjust enrichment and corporate waste and Alan Pinyavat asserted additional claims for unjust enrichment, abuse of control and gross mismanagement. These claims were based on allegations substantially similar to those in the class action lawsuit described above. On August 12, 2022, Alan Pinyavat filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and the case was closed as of December 31, 2022. On August 24, 2022, the parties for the consolidated Patel and Geist case filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the consolidated case and the consolidated case was closed as of December 31, 2022. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a digital healthcare platform. The Company develops tele-medicine platform and a free-to-use website. GoodRx Holdings serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Santa Monica, California. GREEN DOT: Seeks Dismissal of Koffsmon Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- Green Dot Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California heard the motion filed by defendants to dismiss the first amended complaint on December 12, 2022. On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the Company and two of its former officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding its business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding its customer acquisition strategy and its impact on its financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. On October 6, 2021, the Court appointed the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and on April 1, 2022, plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on May 31, 2022, and the motion was heard on December 12, 2022. Green Dot Corporation (NYSE: GDOT) is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Austin, Texas. HERMES B NY: Fails to Pay Minimum OT Wages, Ramirez Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO PEREZ RAMIREZ, JILMAR RAMIREZ (AKA BRYAN GARCIA), JOSE ESTUARDO PEREZ RAMIREZ, MARCOS ISRAEL PEREZ RAMIREZ (AKA VICTOR PEREZ), OMAR EVERARDO CLEMENTE RAMIREZ, and YEISER LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HERMES B NY LLC (D/B/A EMPANADA MAMA EXPRESS), PGNV LLC (D/B/A EMPANADA MAMA), and SOCRATES NANAS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01580 (SDNY, Feb. 24, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS., including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked, the lawsuit claims. The Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Accordingly, the Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising the Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records by designating them as delivery workers instead of non-tipped employees. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying the Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay them at the tip-credit rate, says the suit. In addition the Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating the Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from these Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' wages. The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers and a dishwasher at the restaurants located at 95 Allen Street, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 J.C. PENNEY: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Reference Pricing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marisol C. Mork of the National Law Review reports that JC Penny hit with class action suit over false reference pricing. Competition in the world of online sales is intense, but companies that used inflated original prices to lure customers face consequences. JC Penny, for example, has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of California over its alleged advertising practice of using "false reference pricing." The three-count complaint claims the nationwide retailer violated California's Unfair Competition Laws, False Advertising Laws, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act because of its supposed sale pricing practices. Do the claims have merit? The plaintiff, Maria Carranza, contends that JC Penny is engaging in a scheme to fabricate false "original" (or "reference") prices before offering products for sale at a supposed "discount." Carranza claims that JC Penny falsely advertises its products on its e-commerce website by listing a high reference price and the corresponding sale price. The issue? The products, Carranza claims, were never sold at the listed reference price as advertised. Rather, as stated in the Complaint, the "original" prices are "false or severely outdated reference prices, utilized only to perpetuate Defendant's false discount scheme." JC Penny faced a similar "price anchoring" class action suit in 2015. Part of that proposed settlement provided for "improvements" to the retailer's price comparison advertising policies and practices, including "periodic monitoring and training programs" designed to ensure compliance with California's advertising laws. Carranza's new suit against JC Penny is likely to survive dismissal. The FTC Act provides that when a seller offers a discount from its former original price, the original price is required to have been a price at which the seller actually held that item out for sale for a reasonably substantial period of time. California law is even more specific, providing that a seller can only offer a "sale" from an original price for three months. After that, the seller must either (1) return the product to its full original price or (2) sell the product at the discounted price, but it must disclose the date on which the product was last offered for sale at its former price. Retailers should take careful note of the allegations in Carranza's complaint. The pleading alleges Carranza's counsel "conducted a thorough investigation, " "deploy[ing] a sophisticated software program to track each item offered for sale on the jcpenney.com website." "Plaintiff's counsel's investigation revealed that over 1,990 items on jcpenney.com were on sale for more than 100 days as of, on or around, July 30, 2022." Interestingly, Carranza purchased an air fryer from JC Penny on September 14, 2022. Amid this period of inflation with consumers searching for deals, retailers should be particularly mindful that their sales pricing and advertising practices comport with federal and state law. Among other consumer protection issues, the plaintiff's bar is focused on sales pricing issues. And retailers should not be surprised to learn that their websites are being systematically monitored for potential pricing violations. [GN] JET LENDING: Avina Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Commissions --------------------------------------------------------- CHELSEA AVINA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees Plaintiff v. JET LENDING, LLC, DEBBIE GANT, and EDDIE GANT, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00660 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 22, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wage and overtime of Plaintiff and class members as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act; for supplemental Texas State Law claims of breach of contract for the unpaid fees and commissions; and for claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit for the unpaid fees and commissions. Ms. Avina was hired by the Defendants on January 18, 2021 as an independent loan officer. Within a couple of months, Jet Lending modified Ms. Avina's title and duties to in-house loan officer assistant. Ms. Avina signed another contract which replaced the initial contract. The new contract modified Ms. Avina's commission structure and increased the amount of fee to be paid for each loan closed. The complaint alleges that Defendants did not pay Plaintiff hourly wages or salary, but instead paid her purely on commission basis. The Defendants did not pay Ms. Avina or any other similarly situated workers overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants further breached that contract by failing to pay a promised fee of $980 per every loan closed on which Ms. Avina worked, the suit alleges. Jet Lending, LLC provides asset-based loans for investors to buy investment properties all over the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq. Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com JTH TAX LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JTH Tax LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. JTH Tax LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01755-JHR (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. JTH Tax, Inc., doing business as Liberty Tax Service -- https://www.libertytax.com/ -- offers professional income tax preparation service and online tax filing.[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 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal KEY STONE PLUMBING: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERICK UMANA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEY STONE PLUMBING & HEATING INC. and SAMNARINE UDIT, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01422 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiff was employed by Key Stone Plumbing as a plumbing assistant and pipe cutter while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants from August 2021 until January 2023. He alleges Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide wage statements, and failure to furnish with a written wage notice. Key Stone Plumbing & Heating Inc. is a freight shipping trucking company based in Jamaica, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 LAMON CONSTRUCTION: Josephson Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled DAVID JOSEPHSON, as an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAMON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVCS23-0000075, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sutter, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 22, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00148 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and all "aggrieved employees," a single cause of action for violation of the Private Attorneys General Act pursuant to Cal. Labor Code. The Labor Code violations underlying the complaint are "founded directly on rights created by collective bargaining agreements" and/or are substantially dependent on an analysis and interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement. Lamon Construction Company provides construction of nonresidential buildings and other construction services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Aaron B. Silva, Esq. Charles R. Hellstrom, Esq. MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-2300 Facsimile: (916) 503-4000 E-mail: asilva@murphyaustin.com chellstrom@murphyaustin.com LAS VEGAS ACES: Chapman Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Nev. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DELORES CHAPMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAS VEGAS ACES d/b/a and a/k/a LAS VEGAS BASKETBALL L.P.; MVP EVENT PRODUCTIONS LLC d/b/a and a/k/a MVP EVENT STAFFING; LAUREN GENTZLER; CARIN LEON; GLORIA TREVI; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. A-22-861578-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on Feb. 22, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00278 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for failure to pay earned minimum wages, failure to pay earned overtime, injunctive relief, unjust enrichment, and conversion. LAS VEGAS ACES, d/b/a and a/k/a LAS VEGAS BASKETBALL L.P., are an American professional basketball team based in the Las Vegas metropolitan area in Nevada.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dora V. Lane, Esq. Steven J.T. Washington, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NV 89134 Telephone: (702) 669-4600 Facsimile: (702) 669-4650 E-mail: DLane@hollandhart.com SJWashington@hollandhart.com LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Dark Chocolates Contain Lead, Cadmium, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA HOWARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. LINDT & SPRÜNGLI (USA), INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00243-GMB (N.D. Ala., Feb. 28, 2023) contends that the Defendant is marketing 85% Cocoa Dark Chocolate and Defendant's 70% Cocoa Dark Chocolate with highly dangerous levels of lead and cadmium. Using the California's Maximum Allowable Dose Level for lead (0.5 Micrograms) and cadmium (4.1 mcg), Consumer Reports Magazine found that Lindt's 70% Cocoa dark chocolate product had 48% lead and 116% cadmium, while Lind's 85% Cocoa dark chocolate had 66% lead and 80% cadmium. Lead is a highly toxic metal and a very strong poison. Lead poisoning is a serious and sometimes fatal condition. It occurs when lead builds up in the body. Cadmium is also a dangerous and harmful chemical when consumed. Cadmium is also considered a cancer-causing agent. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased the Products in reliance on Defendant's representation that the Products contained at a minimum reasonable dark chocolate ingredients and were safe for consumption. Had the Defendant disclosed that the Products contained high levels of lead and cadmium, Plaintiff would not have been willing to purchase the Products. The Plaintiff purchased and paid more for the Products than said Products were worth. The Products that Plaintiff received were worth less than the Products for which she paid. the Plaintiff was injured in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant's improper, deceitful conduct, the suit claims. The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Classes: Alabama Class: All persons in the State of Alabama who purchased Lindt 85% Cocoa Dark Chocolate and Lindt 70% Cocoa Dark Chocolate in the last six years. The National Class: All persons residing in the United States who purchased Lindt 85% Cocoa Dark Chocolate and Lindt 70% Cocoa Dark Chocolate in the last six years. Lindt & Sprungli manufactures and sells chocolates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles M. Thompson, Esq. 101 Mohawk Drive Trussville, AL 35173 Telephone: (205) 995-0068 Facsimile: (866) 610-1650 E-mail: cmtlaw@aol.com LIVE AUCTIONEERS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Live Auctioneers LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Live Auctioneers LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01693 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Live Auctioneers -- https://www.liveauctioneers.com/ -- is the leading online auction marketplace for one-of-a-kind items, rare collectibles and coveted goods.[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 LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer of GlobeNewsWire reports that the deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is May 2, 2023 in a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumen Technologies, Inc. ("Lumen" or the "Company") (NYSE: LUMN). Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumen Technologies, Inc. ("Lumen" or the "Company") (NYSE: LUMN). The lawsuit alleges Lumen made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding its business, operations, and prospects, including: (i) various headwinds were impeding the Company's ability to invest in and grow its Quantum Fiber brand; (ii) Quantum Fiber was not progressing as was represented to the investing public; (iii) Lumen's management was reassessing its strategic priorities and had placed a hold on the plans to quickly scale up the Quantum Fiber brand; and (iv) as a result of Lumen's decision to delay expansion of Quantum Fiber, the Company's results and metrics were negatively impacted and the scaling up of Quantum Fiber would not occur until, at the earliest, the end of 2023. If you bought shares of Lumen between September 14, 2020 and February 7, 2023 and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq. at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at https://holzerlaw.com/case/lumen/ to learn more. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website,  www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com[GN] LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voigt Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIANE VOIGT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., JEFF K. STOREY, INDRANEEL DEV, CHRISTOPHER STANSBURY, EDWARD MORCHE, MAXINE L. MOREAU, and SHAUN C. ANDREWS, Case caption, Case No. 3:23-cv-00286 (W.D. La., Mar. 3, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lumen common stock between September 14, 2020 and February 7, 2023, inclusive seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff's claims are asserted against Lumen and certain of Lumen's executive officers and directors. At the outset of the Class Period, Lumen announced it would redefine its business by renaming itself from CenturyLink to Lumen and refining its marketing approach, cutting off market segments and operations that did not align with the Company's strategic objectives. Specifically, Lumen announced to investors that it would leverage its existing 400,000 route miles of fiber optic cable, which had previously serviced enterprise and wholesale markets, to expand its fiber services to small and medium business ("SMB") and residential or consumer markets. Lumen represented to investors that expanding its fiber services into the SMB and residential markets, branded as Quantum Fiber, was a natural fit for the Company that represented a strong opportunity for growth, says the suit. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants represented to investors and the public that Lumen was, among other things, "investing heavily in our consumer fiber business" and "aggressively taking market share in our small business segment." The Defendants also represented that "we continue expanding our Quantum Fiber footprint and increasing our penetration" and "we're not capital-constrained. So as we continue to improve our penetration and performance, we'll continue to expand our footprint, and we believe we've got a long runway for growth in -- within Lumen in Quantum Fiber." However, contrary to Defendants' statements touting the rate of investment and progress in expanding fiber services to SMB and residential markets, Lumen was experiencing serious headwinds that were impeding its ability to grow its newly-targeted fiber markets, the suit alleges. Beginning on February 9, 2022, Defendants began to admit that Lumen's expansion into SMB and residential fiber services was occurring slower than previously represented. On this news, Lumen's stock price declined $1.99, from a close of $12.82 per share on February 9, 2022, to a close of $10.83 on February 10, 2022. On November 2, 2022, Defendants continued to partially disclose the truth when Lumen's Chief Executive Officer admitted, "let me be clear, we are not yet at the pace of build we expect or want" with respect to the Company's development of its Quantum Fiber brand. On this news, Lumen's stock price declined $1.25, from a close of $7.05 per share on November 2, 2022, to a close of $5.80 on November 3, 2022. By February 7, 2023, Defendants would admit, contrary to what was previously represented, that they had pressed "more of a stop button than a pause button" on Lumen's investment into the Quantum Fiber network and expansion into the SMB and residential markets while the Company re-evaluated its strategic priorities. The price of Lumen's common stock had been artificially inflated by Defendants' misrepresentations about the Company's progress expanding into SMB and residential markets. Upon the news that Lumen's progress was slower than represented and that Lumen had stopped investing in the expansion of its Quantum Fiber network, the price of Lumen's common stock plummeted as the artificial inflation was removed from the price. On this news, Lumen's stock price declined $1.04, from a close of $4.99 per share on February 7, 2023, to a close of $3.95 on February 8, 2023, added the suit. Plaintiff Diane Voigt purchased Lumen common stock during the Class Period. Lumen is a corporation, formerly known as CenturyLink, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana. Its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") and the Berlin Stock Exchange and is traded under the symbols "LUMN" and "CYTH," respectively. Prior to September 18, 2020, when the Company rebranded itself as Lumen, the Company's stock traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol CTL. The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq. Morgan M. Embleton, Esq. Nicholas Lange, Esq. David C. Jaynes, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, Connecticut 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com gpotrepka@zlk.com membleton@zlk.com nlange@zlk.com djaynes@zlk.com MANDARICH LAW GROUP: Watson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group, LLP, et al. The case is styled as Alvin Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-20762-BB (S.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mandarich Law Group, LLP -- https://mandarichlaw.com/ -- is a creditors' rights law firm with several locations throughout the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com MANDARICH LAW: Judgment in FDCPA Class Action Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------ Stefanie Jackman, Meagan Mihalko, Jonathan Floyd & Stephen Lozier of Inside Arm report that Second Circuit affirms judgment in favor of Law Firm in meaningful-attorney-involvement FDCPA class action. On February 13, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of an Eastern District of New York court and found that the defendant law firm, Mandarich Law Group, LLC (Mandarich), had conducted a meaningful attorney review of the plaintiff debtor's account prior to mailing her a debt collection letter on the firm's letterhead. The three-judge panel set forth the decision in a summary order, which does not have precedential effect. The putative class action arose out of a debt collection letter Mandarich mailed to the plaintiff in March 2019. The plaintiff alleged the letter included language that overshadowed the statutorily-mandated validation notice and falsely represented or implied that an attorney had meaningfully reviewed the letter in violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). As it relates to the meaningful-attorney-involvement claim, the plaintiff alleged that the use of the firm's letterhead suggested an attorney was involved in the collection of the debt when in fact no attorney had reviewed the account prior to mailing the letter and the letter did not disclose that no attorney was involved in a review of the account. Mandarich moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims, which included the submission of an affidavit from an attorney at the firm that personally reviewed the plaintiff's account using the firm's specialized computer platform and in accordance with the firm’s "Attorney Meaningful Involvement Procedure" prior to the mailing of the letter. Through the review process, the attorney concluded that Mandarich's client owned the plaintiff's account, that the plaintiff had incurred the debt, that the account did not appear to be the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding, and the debt did not arise out of fraud. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mandarich in January 2022 and the plaintiff appealed shortly thereafter. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Mandarich attorney that reviewed her account did not "meaningfully" review it because most of the review was either performed by non-attorneys or was automated. The plaintiff further argued that the entire review process could have taken less than one minute and that the Mandarich attorney did not establish a specific plan to sue in the event the plaintiff failed to pay the debt. The Second Circuit summarily rejected these arguments. Following its prior decision in Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003), the court noted that it never established a specific minimum period of time that is required to constitute meaningful attorney involvement. Nor has the court established a bright-line test to determine whether an attorney was sufficiently involved in the review of an account. Rather, the Second Circuit has directed courts to weigh various factors, including what information was reviewed, the time spent reviewing the file, and whether any legal judgment was involved in the decision to send the collection letters. Under this criteria, the appellate court agreed with the district court and found that the Mandarich attorney had meaningfully reviewed the plaintiff's account. [GN] MARK HENRY CORP: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark Henry Corp. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mark Henry Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-01680 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Mark Henry Corporation -- https://www.markhenrycorporation.com/ -- is a family-run group which houses several fine jewelry brands.[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 MASTER FLOW: Fails to Pay Helpers' OT Wages, Martinez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge A. Martinez and Martin Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Master Flow Technologies (MFT), LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00227 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 24, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant allegedly did not pay the Plaintiffs an overtime premium for any of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiffs the same salary no matter how many hours they worked in a workweek. Accordingly, the Defendant has a business plan that includes hiring helpers and misclassifying them as exempt employees even though they do not perform the job duties of an exempt employee. MFT does this in order to avoid paying overtime pay, saving the Defendant money and allowing it to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment practices, says the suit. Martinez and Alvarez both worked for MFT as helpers from June of 2022 until November of 2022. Their duties included assisting operators in performing oil and gas operations at wellsites. Masterflow specializes in the Oil & Energy area.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com MCDERMOTT CUE: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McDermott Cue Mfg., LLC. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. McDermott Cue Mfg., LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01729 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. against McDermott Cue Mfg. -- http://www.mcdermottcue.com/-- is a maker of handcrafted billiard cues that blends groundbreaking technology with quality materials and exquisite artistry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MDL 2895: Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal in Sensipar MDL Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denies the Defendants' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal in the multidistrict litigation entitled In re: Sensipar (Cinacalcet Hydrochloride Tablets) Antitrust Litigation. This Document Relates to: All Direct Purchaser Actions All Indirect Purchaser Actions, Master Docket No. 19-md-2895-CFC, Civil Action No. 19-396-CFC, 19-1460-CFC, 19-369-CFC, 19-1461-CFC (D. Del.). The consolidated multidistrict antitrust actions were originally assigned to the Honorable Leonard P. Stark. In an order filed on March 11, 2022 (the March Order), Judge Stark granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action complaints filed by the Plaintiffs. Pending before Judge Connolly is the Defendants' motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) for certification of an interlocutory appeal of the March Order. The Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. Judge Stark was elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after issuing the March Order but before the pending motions were fully briefed. The case was reassigned to Judge Connolly upon Judge Stark's elevation to the Federal Circuit. Judge Connolly notes that a threshold question not addressed by the parties is whether he has the power under Section 1292(b) to certify an interlocutory appeal from the March Order. The plain and unambiguous language of Section 1292(b) makes clear that the statute authorizes only the judge, who made the order for which an interlocutory appeal is sought, to certify that order for interlocutory appeal, Judge Connolly opines. Judge Connolly says he did not make the March Order; Judge Stark did. Accordingly, Section 1292(b) does not authorize him to certify an interlocutory appeal of the March Order. Judge Connolly, therefore, denies the Defendants' motion. Judge Connolly rules that Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., and Amgen Inc.'s Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdh6zbnd from Leagle.com. MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mandel v. Blackbaud -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mandel v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-03534 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Mandel Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IqyFCx at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Martin v. Blackbaud -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-02461-JFA (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Martin Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XVtMGY at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3062: Bohrer Farms Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled BOHRER FARMS, INC., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, 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., and HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-2447, 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 Feb. 22, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00166 to the proceeding. The Bohrer Farms case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN RE: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Burke, Esq. Sarah L. Fowler, Esq. BLACKWELL, BURKE & RAMSEY, P.C. 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite 1700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 635-5005 Facsimile: (317) 634-2501 E-mail: jburke@bbrlawpc.com sfowler@bbrlawpc.com Defendant CORTEVA, INC. is represented by: John R. Maley, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 231-7464 Facsimile: (317) 231-7433 E-mail: jmaley@btlaw.com MDL 3062: KM Farms Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KM FARMS, INC.; BLAKE TURNER; JOHN W. JENKINS; OTHO TURNER; AND RHETT TURNER, Plaintiffs, vs. CORTEVA, INC.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; JOHN DOE DEFENDANT WHOLESALERS 1- 5; AND JOHN DOE DEFENDANT RETAILERS 6-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02420, 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 Feb. 22, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00164 to the proceeding. The KM Farms case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN RE: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 Facsimile: (609) 385-0745 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Colby Anne Kingsbury, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 320 South Canal Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 212-6573 Facsimile: (312) 569-3000 E-mail: colby.kingsbury@faegredrinker.com - and - Kathy Lynn Osborn, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 237-8261 E-mail: kathy.osborn@faegredrinker.com MDL 3062: Psencik Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled WALTER PSENCIK and TRAVIS PSENCIK, on behalf of themselves and a proposed Class of similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORTEVA, INC.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; DOE DEFENDANT WHOLESALERS 1-5; AND DOE DEFENDANT RETAILERS 6-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02423, 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 Feb. 22, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00165 to the proceeding. The Psencik case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN RE: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. CHS Inc. is a Fortune 500 secondary cooperative owned by United States agricultural cooperatives, farmers, ranchers, and thousands of preferred stock holders.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David E. Kovel, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 Facsimile: (212) 699-1194 E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com nveno@kmllp.com Defendant CHS, INC. is represented by: Colby Anne Kingsbury, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 320 South Canal Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 212-6573 Facsimile: (312) 569-3000 E-mail: colby.kingsbury@faegredrinker.com - and - Kathy Lynn Osborn, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 237-8261 E-mail: kathy.osborn@faegredrinker.com MDL 3062: Sheller Farms Antirust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHELLER FARMS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, AG, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA CORP., 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 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00202, 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 Feb. 22, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00167 to the proceeding. The Sheller Farms case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN RE: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. Syngenta Crop Protection is an American agricultural chemical and seed company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Megan E. Shannon, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT, LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr. 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: beth@feganscott.com megan@feganscott.com - and - Russell B. Cate, Esq. RILEYCATE, LLC 11 Municipal Drive, Suite 200 Fishers, IN 46038 Telephone: (317) 588-2866 Facsimile: (317) 458-1785 E-mail: rcate@rileycate.com - and - William N. Riley, Esq. PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, L.L.P. 301 Massachusetts Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 633-8787 Facsimile: (317) 633-8797 MDL 3062: Turner Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LESLIE TURNER, on behalf of himself and a proposed Class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORTEVA, INC.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; DOE DEFENDANT WHOLESALERS; AND DOE DEFENDANT RETAILERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-2411, 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 Feb. 22, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00163 to the proceeding. The Turner case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN RE: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq. SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON 7 World Trade Center, 46th Floor 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (917) 634-2244 E-mail: mclerkin@spiroharrison.com Defendant Corteva, Inc. is represented by: John R. Maley, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 231-7464 Facsimile: (317) 231-7433 E-mail: jmaley@btlaw.com ME & RO INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Me & Ro, Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Me & Ro, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01687 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Me&Ro -- https://www.meandrojewelry.com/ -- is a jewelry design company created and produced in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MEMORIAL HEALTH: Stendal Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled AMY L. STENDAL, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL HEALTH SERVICES, a California Nonprofit Corporation; LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, a California Nonprofit Corporation; MILLER CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH AUXILIARY, INC. a California Nonprofit Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV00566, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 23, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01380 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (6) failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation of employment; (7) failure to reimburse necessary expenses; (8) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions; and (9) violation of the Unfair Competition Law. Memorial Health Services is a health services provider based in California.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. McQueen, Esq. Melissa M. Smith, Esq. Alexander Rafuse, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com melissasmith@sheppardmullin.com arafuse@sheppardmullin.com MEMPHIS, TN: Motion for Class Certification Awaits Ruling on Mar 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stacey Shrader Joslin of Tennessee Bar Association reports that decision in Rape Kit Class Action with case-caption Janet Doe vs. City of Memphis delayed 2 weeks. Victims in a rape kit lawsuit must wait at least two more weeks for a ruling on whether the case can move forward as a class action, the Commercial Appeal reports. Three women, whose rape kits went untested for years, are suing to certify their suit as a class action. The judge in the case, Shelby County Circuit Court Judge Gina Higgins, said last October that she would have rulings to issue this month. But last-minute filings from plaintiffs' attorneys, city attorneys and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation added another hearing to the docket. Higgins now is expected to deliver a ruling on March 22, 2023. [GN] METAL CREATIONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metal Creations, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Metal Creations, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01728 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Metal Creations, Inc. -- https://metalcreationsinc.com/ -- offer customized fabrication for architectural, ornamental, and structural metal products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Collins Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS G. COLLINS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Dennis G. Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00129-RLW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiffs Dennis Collins, Suzanne Collins, David Butler, and Lucia Bott bring this suit against the Defendant for the recovery of the premiums they paid for inflation protection under their long-term care ("LTC") insurance policies. They allege that MetLife made fraudulent misrepresentations and concealed material facts about the effects of the inflation rider on their premiums. The Plaintiffs bring suit on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated. The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts four causes of action: common law fraud (Count I), fraudulent concealment (Count II), violation of state consumer unfair and deceptive practices protection acts (Count III), and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count IV). They seek to bring a class action against MetLife. They ask that they be allowed to represent the following class of insureds: All persons in the United States who purchased an individual long-term care insurance policy from MetLife (or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof) and selected the 5% Automatic Compound Inflation Protection Rider at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 1986 to the present and have been subjected to a class-wide rate increase that increased their base premium and the premium/charge paid for the 5% Automatic Compound Inflation Protection Rider. The Defendant did not answer the complaint, but rather filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It moved to dismiss based on the following arguments: (1) the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed because they are barred by the filed-rate doctrine; (2) the Missouri Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed because they did not exhaust the required administrative process for challenging insurance rates or rules; and (3) the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is deficient because the complaint fails to plead any specific contract provision from which the alleged covenant of good faith and fair dealing arises. As an initial matter, the Plaintiffs argued in response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss that the motion is not properly before the Court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but rather should have been brought as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) because the Defendant is raising affirmative defenses. On Feb. 3, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Ronnie L. White. The Court found that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed-rate doctrine. Judge Ronnie held that the doctrine applies to the facts of the case under both Missouri and Illinois law. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs' claims that are directed at policies governed by Missouri law are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 379.348. Judge White declined to address whether the complaint states a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because any such claim would be dismissed under Illinois and Missouri's filed-rate doctrine and/or for failure to exhaust Missouri's administrative remedies. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted. All claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the filed-rate doctrine. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendant that are directed at policies governed by Missouri law were dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellate case is captioned Dennis Collins, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Case No. 23-1351, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on February 23, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on April 4, 2023; -- Brief of Appellants Lucia Bott, David Butler, Dennis G. Collins, and Suzanne Collins is due on April 4, 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] Plaintiffs-Appellants DENNIS G. COLLINS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Robert Rogers Duncan, Esq. James Henry Podolny, Esq. DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC Suite 2550 161 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 202-3283 (312) 202-3281 - and - Steven Mikuzis, Esq. MAG MILE LAW Suite 200 535 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (773) 330-0021 Defendant-Appellee METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Michael J. Duvall, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP Suite 2500 601 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 623-9300 - and - Sandra Hauser, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 768-6700 - and - Drew William Marrocco, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 408-6387 - and - Stephen Jerome O'Brien, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 3000 One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-5904 MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Class Cert. Bid in Price Fixing Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Boudreau and Mirna Kaddis of Fasken report that in Hazan c. Micron Technology Inc. et al. , the Quebec Court of Appeal has confirmed the Superior Court's first instance judgment dismissing the authorization of a class action alleging an international conspiracy to fix the prices of dynamic random-access memory chips ("DRAM"). While Plaintiffs who file a price-fixing class actions normally rely on some tangible evidence to demonstrate the existence of the alleged conspiracy, such as a guilty plea, fine or indictment, the Plaintiff in Hazan advanced no specific facts or evidence to support his otherwise general and vague misconduct allegations. This was fatal to his claim. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fix the prices of DRAM, referring to an investigation into a conspiracy to fix the price of DRAM in China, but failing to elaborate on the nature and results of that investigation. Instead, the Plaintiff simply advanced that the DRAM industry was "conducive" to conspiracy, and alleged the price variation of the chips for the class period (i.e. 2016 to 2018). The Plaintiff did not support any of his allegations with any tangible facts or evidence of an alleged agreement between the parties to fix prices. The Superior Court ruled that the allegations of fault were insufficient to meet even the low threshold for authorization. In a biting passage, the first instance judge held that: "[z]ero times zero equals zero." In other words, simply repeating that the defendants conspired to fix the price of DRAM, without any evidence in support thereof, does not constitute sufficient evidence to create an arguable case. The Court of Appeal reiterates the standard of review from a decision dismissing the authorization of a class action, namely that it will only intervene in cases where the motion judge erred in law or if the judge's assessment with respect to the criteria of art. 575 C.C.P. is clearly wrong. The Court of Appeal agrees with the first instance judge's finding, noting that the Plaintiff's allegations, even if taken as true, are insufficient to demonstrate an arguable case. The Superior Court judge correctly applied the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada in Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs, which provide that even if the threshold to authorize a class action is a relatively low bar, mere assertions are insufficient without some form of factual underpinning. No tangible evidence whatsoever was proffered by the Plaintiff and the Court of Appeal thus dismissed the appeal with costs. The Hazan case is a reminder that a skeletal application, based only on general allegations and speculations, without "some evidence" to support the existence of a conspiracy is insufficient to meet even the low threshold for authorization in Quebec. Indeed, where no public authorities anywhere have identified a conspiracy justifying sanctions or further investigation, general allegations of an international conspiracy to fix prices will not be enough to authorize a competition class action. The Plaintiff can still file an application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada. [GN] MINNESOTA: District Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Jamison v. Ludeman ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned Shawn M. Jamison, Plaintiff v. Cal R. Ludeman, Dennis Benson, Laurie Severson, Kevin Moser, Terry Keisel, Scott Benoit, Blake Carey, Tom Lundquist, Elizabeth Barbo, Ann Zimmerman, Sara Kulas, Brian Ninnerman, Dr. Melissa Hagen, Tara Osbourne, Katherine Klanchard, Jessica Tisbisera, Joe Mullens, and Donna Cronin, each in their individual capacity and their official capacity as employee of the Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program, Defendants, Case No. 11-2136 (PAM/DTS) (D. Minn.), Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issued a Memorandum and Order: (1) granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and (2) denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate. Jamison is involuntarily committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program ("MSOP"). More than a decade ago, a group individuals committed to MSOP brought a class-action lawsuit, alleging constitutional violations arising out of the conditions of their civil detention (Karsjens v. Minn. Dep't of Hum. Servs., No. 11-cv-3659 (DWF/TNL)). Jamison does not dispute that he was a member of the Karsjens class. The Court stayed Jamison's case pending the outcome in Karsjens. After final judgment was entered in Karsjens in February 2022, the stay in this matter was lifted and all previously pending motions, including a motion to dismiss, were denied. This renewed Motion to Dismiss followed. The Defendants' Motion argues that Jamison's claims were or could have been fully litigated in the Karsjens action and are, thus, barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, also known as claim and issue preclusion. Jamison's opposition memorandum does not meaningfully respond to this contention, instead arguing that class counsel in Karsjens did not raise all claims that could have been raised in that matter and was, therefore, ineffective. But the quality of class counsel's representation in Karsjens is not at issue here, Judge Magnuson says. Jamison has brought claims in this matter against individuals, who were or are responsible for the conditions of his continued detention. Those individuals cannot afford him any relief for the ostensible deficiencies of class counsel in Karsjens. As the Defendants argue, many of Jamison's claims are the same as those raised in Karsjens. The claims are undoubtedly barred from relitigation in this matter, Judge Magnuson holds. The claims were actually raised in Karsjens, the Karsjens court had jurisdiction over the matter, the Defendants here either were defendants in Karsjens or are in privity with the Karsjens defendants, and a final judgment on the merits has been rendered on those claims. Judge Magnuson holds that Jamison's claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 are explicitly barred from further prosecution and will be dismissed as such. Jamison's remaining claims are arguably different than those raised in Karsjens, but they are likewise barred. The Defendants also argue that Jamison's claims fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Although this argument is likely correct, because the Court determines that all of Jamison's claims are barred by claim and issue preclusion, a determination on the merits of those claims is not necessary, Judge Magnuson states. Similarly, the determination that Jamison's claims are precluded renders moot his motion to consolidate his case with several other MSOP detainees' cases. Finally, the Court must comment on the tenor of Jamison's memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. While it is understandable that he is frustrated with the slow pace of the Karsjens litigation and with the results in that litigation, thus far, he repeatedly casts aspersions on the Assistant Attorney General in this matter, going so far as to accuse the attorney of violations of Rule 11. Rule 11 is a serious matter, and litigants must avoid invoking that Rule with no basis for doing so, Judge Magnuson opines. In this case, the Assistant Attorney General has zealously represented his clients. He has not committed any violations of his obligations to the Court or to Jamison, Judge Magnuson holds. Accordingly, Judge Magnuson rules that: 1. the Motion to Dismiss is granted; 2. the Motion to Consolidate is denied as moot; and 3. this matter is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdh6tjpu from Leagle.com. MUTUAL FUND: Garrison Point Wins Bid to Dismiss Claims in Koza Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Margaret A. Chan of the Supreme Court, New York County, grants Defendant Garrison Point Capital, LLC's motion to dismiss the amended complaint against it in the lawsuit entitled SUSAN KOZA, Plaintiff v. MUTUAL FUND SERIES TRUST, ALPHACENTRIC ADVISORS LLC, NORTHERN LIGHTS DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, JERRY SZILAGYI, BERT PARISER, TOBIAS CALDWELL, TIBERIU WEISZ, ERIK NAVILOFF, GARRISON POINT CAPITAL, LLC, FREDRICK SCHMIDT, Defendants, Index No. 655297/2020 (N.Y. Sup.). In this putative class action alleging strict liability and negligence claims against the Defendants for their alleged violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), Defendant Garrison Point Capital, LLC (Garrison Point) moves pursuant to New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(1), (7) and (8) for an order dismissing the amended complaint against it. The Plaintiff opposes the motion. The action concerns the AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund (the Fund) that lost about $2 billion in a fire sale to meet a large amount of redemption requests during the coronavirus pandemic. Plaintiff Susan Koza purchased shares of the Fund during the period of Oct. 14, 2017, through March 22, 2020, inclusive (the Class Period). Defendant Mutual Fund Series Trust is the Fund's registrant and an open-end management investment company, and the Fund is one of the "series" of mutual funds within the Trust. Defendant AlphaCentric Advisors LLC is the Fund's investment advisor and retained Garrison Point to act as the Fund's sub-advisor. Other Defendants in this action are Northern Lights Distributors LLC (Northern Lights), the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund, and individuals, who are and/or were the Trust's trustees and officers (Individual Defendants). In the amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Fund's offering materials were false and materially misleading in violation of the Securities Act since the Fund, inter alia, portrayed itself as devoted to "capital preservation" while it was heavily invested in highly illiquid, risky and distressed assets, such as legacy non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities. In March 2020, the Fund experienced "a sudden, dramatic drop" in the value of its shares as it had to meet the large increase in redemption requests, losing over $1.8 billion of Fund value in days. The Plaintiff alleges that the drop was not caused by general economic decline but rather by the Defendants' failure to adhere to the Fund's stated investment objectives and risky amassing of illiquid securities. The Plaintiff commenced the action on Oct. 14, 2020, by filing a summons and complaint, and subsequently filed an amended complaint on Feb. 26, 2021, adding Garrison Point as Defendant. The amended complaint alleges three causes of action based on Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, respectively. The only claim against Garrison Point is the second cause of action for violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Of relevance here, Garrison Point is registered with the SEC as an investment advisor. While AlphaCentric was engaged by the Fund as the Fund's advisor, Garrison Point is not directly in contract with the Fund or the Trust. Rather, Garrison Point was retained to serve as the investment sub-advisor to the Fund under an Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement with AlphaCentric. Under the agreement, Garrison Point is responsible for selecting the securities for investment, and in return, receives a management fee that is calculated as 50% of the net management fees that the Advisor AlphaCentric receives from the Fund. Garrison Point moves to dismiss the amended complaint against it (1) for failure to establish that it was a statutory seller within the meaning of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and (2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, Garrison Point argues that in its capacity as the sub-advisor, it solely made decisions regarding proxy voting for securities held by the Fund but did not offer or sell securities to the Plaintiff or anyone in the class. The Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that Garrison Point was a statutory seller since it solicited purchases of the securities from class members for its own financial gain by, for instance, posting on its website's "invest with us" page a link to "Learn about the AlphaCentric Income Opportunities mutual fund (IOFIX) which has a 4%-8% target return and a 5-star Overall Morningstar Rating," and promoting their work to build the Fund in an annual report letter to its investors. Since the Plaintiff does not allege that Garrison Point directly sold the securities to her or other class members, Garrison Point will be liable under Section 12(a)(2) only if it "solicited" the sale, Judge Chan says, citing Commercial Union Assur. Co., PLC v Milken, 17 F.3d 608, 616 [2d Cir 1994]. A claim of solicitation requires allegations that the Defendant successfully solicited the Plaintiff to purchase the securities at issue, and "motivated at least in part by a desire to serve his own financial interests or those of the securities owner," Judge Chan explains, citing Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 644 [1988]. Applying the Pinter analysis, federal courts have consistently held that a defendant can be deemed a "statutory seller" if he "directly" and "actually" solicited the sale. Under this standard, Judge Chan finds that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that Garrison Point is a statutory seller under Section 12(a)(2). Under the Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement, Garrison Point is responsible for selecting the securities and managing investment operations for the Fund. The agreement is silent on any responsibilities as to sale, marketing, or solicitation of investors. Also, the amended complaint contains no specific allegations to support that Garrison Point solicited any sale of the Fund's shares. In opposing the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff raises new facts about Garrison Point's website and a letter to its investors dated March 31, 2019. Even taking the additional facts into consideration, the Court still finds the allegations insufficient to claim solicitation. Given every favorable inference, these allegations are inadequate to establish that Garrison Point directly and actively solicited investors to purchase the Fund's shares, Judge Chan holds. Moreover, the amended complaint does not allege that Garrison Point stood to financially benefit from the increased sale. As the Fund's sub-advisor, Garrison Point only received a management fee for its services of selecting securities, Judge Chan notes. The Plaintiff does not plead that Garrison Point received, or was promised to receive, any compensation for soliciting sales of the Fund's shares. Thus, Garrison Point is not a Section 12(a)(2) statutory seller. Accordingly, Judge Chan holds, since the allegations in the amended complaint, together with the additional facts raised in the Plaintiff's opposition to this motion, do not give rise to an inference that Garrison Point is a statutory seller, this claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act is dismissed against Garrison Point. In light of this dismissal, the Court need not reach parties' other arguments regarding personal jurisdiction. Judge Chan ordered that the motion by Defendant Garrison Point Capital, LLC, to dismiss the claim against it for violation of Section 12(a)(2) of Securities Act is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Garrison Point Capital, LLC, and dismissing the amended complaint against it. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/45fpjhsa from Leagle.com. MY BAIT SHOP: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Bait Shop, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. My Bait Shop, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01714 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MyBaitShop.com -- https://www.mybaitshop.com/ -- is the world's largest online only new, used & vintage fishing tackle shop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MYRIAD GENETICS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Myriad Genetics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that discovery is ongoing for the securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. On September 27, 2019, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, against the Company, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone, and its Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee (Defendants). On February 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, which added the Company's former Executive Vice President of Clinical Development, Bryan M. Dechairo, as an additional Defendant. This action, captioned In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB), is premised upon allegations that the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and acquisitions. The lead plaintiff seeks the payment of damages allegedly sustained by it and the purported class by reason of the allegations set forth in the amended complaint, plus interest, and legal and other costs and fees. On March 16, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On December 1, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties currently are engaged in discovery. Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics, Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. NATIONAL GRID: Stearns Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Stearns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL GRID PLC, NATIONAL GRID ELECTRIC SERVICES LLC, USIC LLC, and RECONN HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00276-GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime wages. The Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated the FLSA, by knowingly requiring, suffering, or permitting him to work more than 40 hours per week without properly paying them overtime wages. The Defendant also violated the NYLL as a result of the Defendants' failure to provide wage notices and wage statements as required by the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL, and supporting regulations; failure to pay prevailing wages, daily overtime, holiday premiums, and supplemental benefits that they were entitled to receive for work that they performed under contracts between Defendants and New York State and/or municipalities; failure to pay "spread of hours" premiums, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was employed as a "Damage Prevention Adviser." The Defendants are businesses that provide various utility services at construction sites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. Nicholas Bittner, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Phone: 646-430-7930 Email: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com nbittner@workingsolutionsnyc.com NATIONWIDE COMPLIANT: Mitchell Sues to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Cherice Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE COMPLIANT, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00157 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other applicable penalties brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Although the Plaintiff routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff as exempt from overtime. The decision by the Defendant not to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff was neither reasonable nor in good faith. the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Nationwide as a Market Support Specialist from February of 2022 through January of 2023. Nationwide is a Lease Compliance Management software company that provides "a streamlined and affordable way to manage Lease Compliance."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Blayne Fisher, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com blayne@a2xlaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Muzumala Has 60 Days to File Second Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JACOB MUZUMALA, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES; PAMOJA HOUSE; BRONXWORKS; PROJECT RENEWAL; DANIEL W. TEITZ (OFFICIAL CAPACITY); GARY P. JENKINS (OFFICIAL CAPACITY); GAIL CRICK; EBONY WEBB; TAMARA GAYLE; SUSAN BRADY; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-8423 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Laura S. Taylor of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days of the date of her Order. The Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings the action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated Oct. 12, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. The Plaintiff, who is of "African descent," came to the United States in 2006. At an unspecified time, he applied to become a legal permanent resident of the United States. Between 2019 and October 2021, he Plaintiff lived in New Paltz, New York, Brooklyn, New York, and New Orleans, Louisiana, after enrolling in advanced academic programs in those places. In all three locations, federal agents and their "proxies" stalked the Plaintiff and invaded his privacy in an apparent attempt, he believes, to have him deported. Although the Plaintiff's petition for permanent residency status was approved on May 21, 2021, the immigration pursuit has persisted anyway. The Plaintiff alleges that, since he returned to New York City from New Orleans in November 2021, his rights have been violated in myriad ways in the New York City homeless shelter system. Named as defendants in an amended complaint he filed on Jan. 23, 2023, are: (1) the City of New York; (2) New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS); (3) Pamoja House; (4) Pamoja House Director Gail Crick; (5) BronxWorks; (6) Project Renewal; (7) Daniel W. Teitz, Commissioner, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance; (8) Gary P. Jenkins, Commissioner, New York City Human Resources Administration; (9) Ebony Webb, Program Director, Help107; (10) Tamara Gayle, Program Director, JAMS; (11) Boulevard Men's Residence (BRC) Doctor Susan Brady; (12) Jane Doe, JAMS Resident Assistant; (13) John Doe, DHS peace officer at JAMS. In November 2021, upon returning to New York City from New Orleans, the Plaintiff sought temporary housing from the City of New York, and he was housed in a number of shelters "under DHS," including Pamoja House, BronxWorks, Project Renewal, Help107, BRC, and JAMS. He asserts that his rights under state and federal law have been violated at these facilities in myriad ways. He Plaintiff alleges that: (1) the Defendants have been "deliberately indifferent" to his health and the health of other shelter residents by housing substance abusers with people who are either are or are perceived to be mentally ill; (2) he has been exposed to illegal drugs and secondhand smoke of various types; (3) BRC doctor Susan Brady misdiagnosed the Plaintiff with schizophrenia; (4) several roommates physically assaulted and threatened the Plaintiff; (5) the Defendants denied the Plaintiff's reasonable requests for transfers to other shelters, and retaliated against him for requesting transfers; (6) the Defendants destroyed his property; (7) the Defendants called the police to have him removed from a shelter when he was simply exercising his right to consider whether or not to accept the transfer; (8) Defendants Teitz and Jenkins failed to properly train their staff; and (9) DHS staff unlawfully videotaped the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class action of non-drug users with real or perceived mental illnesses who have been housed with substance abusers and exposed to illegal drugs and smoke, money damages, litigation expenses under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, and to have Brady's "misdiagnosis" rescinded. He also filed motions seeking: (1) disclosure of the names of the Doe defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26; and (2) service on the named Defendants. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class action in connection with his claims. Because pro se means to appear for one's self, a person may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause. As a non-attorney, Judge Taylor says the Plaintiff cannot bring claims on behalf of others. She therefore construes the amended complaint as asserting claims solely on behalf of the Plaintiff, the only person who signed the amended complaint. Judge Taylor now turns to the claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. As to the claims against the named Defendants, Judge Taylor holds that the private defendants named in this amended complaint -- Pamoja House and its director, Crick; BronxWorks; Project Renewal; Program Director for Help107 Ebony Webb; JAMS, its program director Tamara Gayle, and its resident assistant Jane Doe; and BRC Dr. Susan Brady -- are private actors who are not alleged to work for any state or other governmental body. She says the Plaintiff's allegations that these Defendants are homeless shelters, operate "under DHS," work for agencies that operate homeless shelters, or receive funds from the City of New York, are insufficient to suggest that their actions are attributable to the state. The Plaintiff therefore fails to state a Section 1983 claim against these Defendants. As to the claims against DHS and the City of New York, Judge Taylor holds that they must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued. The Plaintiff asserts claims regarding his housing and alleged retaliation, but, his allegations do not amount to constitutional violations. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff had provided facts suggesting a violation of his constitutional rights, he has not alleged that the city has a policy, custom, or practice that was the cause of his injury. None of his allegations suggests that the City has a policy, practice, or custom that violated his rights. Regarding the claims against OTDA Commissioner Teitz, HRA Commissioner Jenkins, and DHS Peace Officer John Doe, Judge Taylor finds that the Plaintiff does not allege any facts showing how Defendants Teitz, Jenkins, and John Doe were personally involved in the events underlying his claims, or in violating his constitutional rights. Any claims the Plaintiff is asserting, under Section 1983, based on shelter conditions must be dismissed because there is no federal constitutional right to housing, including a shelter system. The shelter staff are also private actors, and the Plaintiff has failed to allege facts suggesting they should be considered state actors under Section 1983. Regarding the state law claims, Judge Taylor determines that because it is not clear whether the Plaintiff can state a federal claim, she will determine at a later stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims the Plaintiff asserts. Because the Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to state a valid claim, Judge Taylor Court grants him 60 days' leave to amend his complaint for a second time to detail his claims. The Plaintiff is granted leave to submit a second amended complaint to provide more facts about his claims. In the "Statement of Claim" section of the second amended complaint form, the Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each Defendant. If he has an address for any named Defendant, he must provide it. The Plaintiff should include all of the information in the second amended complaint that he wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the second amended complaint states a claim for relief. Essentially, his second amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated his federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because the Plaintiff's second amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that he wants to include from the amended complaint must be repeated in the second amended complaint. The Plaintiff must submit the second amended complaint to the Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the date of Judge Taylor's Order, caption the document as an "Second Amended Complaint," and label the document with docket number 22-CV-8423 (LTS). If the Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The outstanding motions (ECF 9, 10,) are denied without prejudice to renewal once the Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint and the Court has had the opportunity to evaluate its merit. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/59w5afd5 from Leagle.com. NEW YORK: Andersen Files Appeal in Labor Suit to N.Y. Appelate Div. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff DANNY ANDERSEN filed an appeal from a court ruling entered December 23, 2022, in the lawsuit entitled Danny Andersen, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Samuel D. Roberts, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, and JOHN F. O'NEILL, as Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Defendants, Case No. 901412-17, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Albany County. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff received public assistance from the Suffolk County Department of Social Services from November 2010 through February 2013. As a condition of such, he gave SCDSS a mortgage against his property in the amount of the assistance he received. He also participated in the Suffolk Work Experience Program, in which he worked approximately 1,773 hours over a two-year period. Mr. Andersen has commenced this action, in which he pleads three causes of action: (1) the refusal of defendants to credit his Suffolk Work Experience Program work violated " Carver v. State of New York"; (2) the taking of a lien including the amount earned under Social Service Law Section 336-c (2)(b) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act; and (3) the taking of a lien unjustly enriched defendants. The appellate case is captioned as DANNY ANDERSEN v. SAMUEL D ROBERTS et al., Case No. CV-23-0334, in the New York Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, filed on Feb. 21, 2023.[BN] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Sued Over Train Derailment, Chemical Spill ------------------------------------------------------------ JON LUKE AFFELTRANGER; and COMPETITION & LUXURY VEHICLE CLUB OF DARLINGTON LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; and NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00440 (N.D. Ohio, March 3, 2023) is an action arising out of the catastrophic derailment of a Norfolk train in East Palestine, Ohio, resulting in the release of toxic and carcinogenic materials into the soil, water, and air. According to the complaint, on February 3, 2023, at approximately 8:54 p.m. local time, Norfolk general merchandise freight train 32N was traveling eastbound and derailed in East Palestine, Ohio. The derailment was the result of an overheated wheel bearing which was 253 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the ambient air temperature. As a result of the derailment of Norfolk's freight train 32N, and the subsequent release of an untold amount of harmful and toxic chemicals into the surrounding areas, the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have been exposed to acute and chronic toxic materials that pose a danger to human health; have suffered rashes, headaches, and nausea; and have had their properties invaded and contaminated by plumes of dangerous chemical smoke and other toxic materials, says the suit. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION provides rail transportation services. The Company transports raw materials, intermediate products, and finished goods primarily in the Southeast, East, and Midwest and, via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com kelly@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Dave Buchanan, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Bid to Decertify in Antitrust Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edmond E. Chang of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's motions to decertify class and for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled IN RE NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 07 CV 04446 (N.D. Ill.). In this antitrust class action, the parties are now on their fifth set of certification-related briefings. Most recently, Defendant NorthShore University HealthSystem filed a motion for decertification, this time challenging, among other things, the adequacy of the class representatives. Shortly after, but before the class-certification issue was resolved, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, along with motions challenging expert evidence. The Court provisionally granted NorthShore's decertification motion on adequacy grounds, but allowed the class's counsel to find a new class representative. Eventually, the class's counsel proposed a new class representative, David Freedman. The Court then held that Freedman is a proper and adequate representative. The Court now considers the other Rule 23(b)(3) decertification arguments presented by NorthShore, as well as the parties' renewed cross-motions for summary judgment. Back in early 2000, Northshore--then doing business as Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp.--merged with Highland Park Hospital, located in Highland Park, Illinois. Before the merger, Northshore owned Evanston Hospital in Evanston, Illinois, as well as Glenbrook Hospital in nearby Glenview, Illinois. Since then, NorthShore has operated the three hospitals as a single, integrated entity. Just before consummating the merger, NorthShore hired Bain & Co., Inc., an independent consulting firm to evaluate its commercial payor contracts. In a draft memorandum of their findings, Bain concluded that many of NorthShore's contracted rates at the time should undergo a one-time corrective adjustment to make the rates more profitable. Later, the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint against NorthShore, alleging that the merger substantially lessened competition and enabled NorthShore to raise its prices of inpatient services to private payers above the price that the hospitals would have charged absent the merger. During the FTC proceedings, NorthShore admitted that it raised its prices, but argued that it did so because the pre-merger prices were below market. An FTC Administrative Law Judge rejected this defense and found that NorthShore's price increases were in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 18. On appeal, the FTC Commission issued a Final Order affirming the ALJ's finding of liability and ordering Northshore to allow payors and managed care organizations, MCOs, with pre-existing contracts to "re-open and renegotiate their contracts." After that, at the end of July 2008, NorthShore sent letters to MCOs and informed them of the FTC's Final Order. After the FTC issued its Final Order, the then-Plaintiffs (at the time, there was more than one named Plaintiff) filed this case as a proposed class action on behalf of all end payors, who purchased inpatient or outpatient healthcare services directly from NorthShore. The Plaintiffs alleged that NorthShore illegally monopolized the healthcare services market and used its leverage to artificially inflate prices paid by the Plaintiffs and the proposed class in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act. After discovery, an interlocutory appeal, more discovery, certification of the class, still more discovery, and a dispute over a change in class representative, the case has reached the stage of cross-motions for summary judgment and a motion by NorthShore to decertify the class. Both parties also filed Rule 702 motions against the other side's experts. Motion for Decertification On decertification, NorthShore argues that the Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements. And as for summary judgment, NorthShore argues two things: (1) that the Plaintiff has not properly defined the relevant market, and (2) that the Plaintiff is barred from pursuing any damages arising after the 2008 FTC-imposed remedy. For the class, the Plaintiff argues that the class is entitled to summary judgment on liability, and that NorthShore's affirmative defense fails. Judge Chang notes that continued certification of the class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is proper if the Plaintiff can show that two things remain intact: predominance and superiority. NorthShore contends that the Plaintiff no longer can show either element. To meet these class-certification requirements the first time around, the Plaintiff relied on the opinions and testimony of Dr. David Dranove. Eventually, however, Dranove became unavailable to serve as an expert for the Plaintiff, so now the Plaintiff primarily relies on Dr. William Vogt. Dr. Vogt's proposed method to show antitrust impact is largely the same as Dr. Dranove's, but with one exception: Vogt was only able to use one of the MCO-level data sets, that of BCBS PPO, as opposed to all of them (SEALED, Vogt Report). But otherwise, the Plaintiff's proof remains almost the same. Like Dranove's analysis, the primary aspect of Vogt's methodology is a difference-in-differences analysis (which the parties have been calling a "DID" analysis). The DID method consists of identifying a control group of comparable hospitals and then running regressions to see if prices increased at a faster rate at the subject hospital (here, Northshore) than at a group of control hospitals. Dr. Vogt used two data sets to conduct his analysis: one using average price increases based on the Medicare Cost Report (MCR) data, and the other using MCO-level data (the BCBS PPO data). There is not enough reason to doubt the reliability of the MCR data all the way to the point of excluding Dr. Vogt's opinions, Judge Chang says. Dr. Vogt credibly explains how MCR data has been commonly used by economists employing DID analyses to study the effects of hospital mergers on prices. In sum, Judge Chang holds, NorthShore's Rule 702 and Daubert motion against Dr. Vogt's opinions, at least as to his opinions based on MCR and BCBS PPO data, is denied. On the issue of Rule 23(b)(3) predominance, Judge Chang finds that the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the class can use common evidence--the post-merger price increases NorthShore negotiated with insurers--to show that all or most of the insurers and individuals, who received coverage through those insurers suffered antitrust injury as a result of the merger. The remainder of NorthShore's arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive, Judge Chang says. Whether the Plaintiff should have been able to use the rest of the MCO data is missing the point: the Plaintiff has shown that the class is at the very least capable of proving antitrust impact employing a DID analysis on MCR and BCBS data, Judge Chang points out. NorthShore's only argument as to why the Plaintiff cannot establish superiority is that the class cannot establish predominance. But as discussed, the Plaintiff has satisfied the predominance requirement. With NorthShore's arguments on decertification rejected, Judge Chang holds that the motion to decertify is denied. Motions for Summary Judgment In its summary judgment motions, NorthShore presents two main arguments. First, NorthShore argues that the Plaintiff has not established a proper relevant geographic market. In response, the Plaintiff contends that not only has the class successfully identified the market, no trier of fact could find for NorthShore on the issue, so it is the class that is entitled to summary judgment on this issue. Second, NorthShore argues that the class is barred from pursuing damages after the issuance of the 2008 FTC Final Order. At this stage, though, Judge Chang holds that the Plaintiffs do not have to actually establish the relevant market or exclude all other possible geographic markets. Generally speaking, defining the relevant market is a question for jury. In sum, there is a genuine dispute over the relevant geographic market, so neither party is entitled to summary judgment on the issue, Judge Chang explains Lastly, NorthShore argues that because the class failed to respond to Northshore's letter (dated July 30, 2008) offering to reopen negotiations, the class consequently waived any claim to damages and failed to mitigate damages, so the class is estopped from pursuing damages now. The problem for NorthShore, though, is that even assuming NorthShore's letter was received by the intended recipients, NorthShore only sent the letter to MCOs, Judge Chang notes. But not all class members are MCOs. So that means that some class members, like Plaintiff Freedman, were never even aware of the remedy proposed by the FTC's Final Order. So NorthShore's summary judgment as to waiver and failure to mitigate fails most certainly must fail as to the non-MCOs. Judge Chang finds that a genuine dispute of material fact exists on the mitigate defense, so NorthShore is not entitled to summary judgment on it. For its part, the class argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because the evidence presented shows there is no dispute over NorthShore's liability, and because NorthShore's quality-of-care affirmative defense fails. Judge Chang holds that the motion is denied as to liability and granted on the affirmative defense. Judge Chang finds that there is a genuine dispute over whether NorthShore exercised market power, so the Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on this issue. For one of NorthShore's affirmative defenses, NorthShore asserts that the merger resulted in numerous efficiencies, including significant improvements in quality of care. The class argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on this affirmative defense for two reasons: (1) the defense fails as a matter of law; and (2) even if it were a viable defense as a legal issue, the opinions of NorthShore's quality of care expert, Dr. Gregg Meyer, are inadmissible. The Court agrees, at least on the latter argument. Judge Chang finds that Meyer's opinion on the quality of care does not answer a relevant question, and is, thus, inadmissible. The remainder of the evidence that NorthShore relies on, namely the Obstetrics & Gynecology Annual Report and the Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Critical Care Dashboard, also does not stave off summary judgment, Judge Chang opines. Neither document discusses--much less establishes, even when viewed in NorthShore's favor--the requisite causation. Summary judgment is entered against the affirmative defense. Therefore, Judge Chang denies NorthShore's motion to decertify the class and motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is denied in large part and granted in part against the quality-of-care affirmative defense. In moving forward with the litigation, in light of this Opinion, Judge Chang directs the parties to confer and file a status report on (1) the restart of settlement negotiations; (2) the estimated number of trial days (dividing the estimate into the number of trial days for evidence versus the number of days for jury selection, openings, closings, and deliberations); (3) a schedule to disclose the defense's substitute expert disclosure, limited to substantially similar opinions (the motion to do so is granted) and to depose the expert; and (4) whether NorthShore plans on (or has by the time of the filing of the status report) filing a petition in the Seventh Circuit for permission to interlocutorily appeal under Civil Rule 23(f). The status report is due on March 14, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order dated Feb. 20, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5esk55dz from Leagle.com. NOW COURIER: Babayemi Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification ---------------------------------------------------------- Oluwafemi Babayemi, Joseph Adeniyi, Damliare Ehinola, Abiola Oladeji Kosile, Olawale Kehinde, Samantha Johnson and Oluwafemi Adelanwa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NOW COURIER, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00353-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought under the Indiana wage laws, and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), challenging the unlawful misclassification of Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead of employees and seeking remedies for statutory violations resulting from this misclassification. The Defendant pays the Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers a flat amount per route, per mile, or per delivery stop. All of these rates are unilaterally determined by the Defendant. The Defendant deducts various amounts from the delivery drivers' weekly pay for business-related costs, including Cargo insurance, uniforms, and a required mobile device app, all of which were required in order to perform the job. By misclassifying delivery drivers as independent contractors, the Defendant requires the drivers to bear the costs of performing delivery services, including, but not limited to, gasoline, tolls, vehicle maintenance and depreciation (as drivers were required to use their own vehicles), and insurance. The Defendant did not reimburse the Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers for incurring necessary expenditures or losses within the scope of their employment for the Defendant. The Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers typically work more than 8 hours per day from the time they arrive at the Defendant's and/or Defendant's clients' facilities until their route(s) servicing Defendant's clients is complete. The Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers work more than 40 hours per week because they routinely work shifts of 8 hours or more per day, 5 to 7 days per week. The Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers frequently are not paid for all hours worked at an hourly rate at or in excess of the minimum wage rates established by the FLSA and the laws of the various states in which they worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs delivered pharmaceutical and medical products on behalf of and at the direction of NOW in Indiana. NOW performs "final mile" or "last mile" delivery services of pharmaceuticals, medical products, financial documents, and other products throughout the Midwestern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anastasia Pavich, Esq. PAVICH LAW GROUP P.C. 30 W. Monroe St. Suite 1310 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 690-8400 Email: apavich@pavichlawgroup.com - and - Bradley Manewith, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Fax (617) 993-5801 Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com OHIO: Supreme Court Orders Judge O'Donnell to Dismiss Parma Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled THE STATE EX REL. OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION v. O'DONNELL, JUDGE, Case No. 2022-0108 (Ohio), the Supreme Court of Ohio grants both of the Relator's requested writs: (1) a writ of prohibition ordering respondent, Judge John P. O'Donnell of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, to stop exercising jurisdiction over Parma v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-21-943131 ("the underlying case"); and (2) a writ of mandamus ordering Judge O'Donnell to dismiss the underlying case. In 2013, the city of Cleveland and intervening respondent, the city of Parma, sued the Bureau in separate actions in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, alleging that the Bureau's former premium-calculation method had resulted in excessive premium charges for non-group-rated employers. Cleveland brought its action individually; however, Parma filed a class action. In February 2020, the Court held that the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over Cleveland's action because Cleveland's claim for relief--reimbursement of excessive premiums by way of restitution--sounded in law, not equity (Cleveland v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 159 Ohio St.3d 459, 2020-Ohio-337, 152 N.E.3d 172, Para. 1, 7-8, 11. In March 2020, Judge O'Donnell dismissed Parma's action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing this Court's decision in Cleveland. In January 2021, Parma filed the underlying case in the common pleas court, which Parma characterized as a "refiling" of its 2013 case against the Bureau. Parma sought a declaratory judgment determining the amount of the refund that it claimed it was owed by the Bureau and an injunction prohibiting the Bureau from refusing to pay the refund. Judge O'Donnell denied the Bureau's motion to dismiss Parma's complaint, reasoning that this court's decision in Cleveland did not control. On the same day Parma filed the underlying case, it also filed an action against the Bureau in the Court of Claims (Parma v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2021-00024JD (July 12, 2021)). In the Court of Claims, Parma asked for an award of damages as compensation for the alleged overcharged premiums. The Court of Claims dismissed Parma's complaint, in part because the statute of limitations had passed. In January 2022, the Bureau brought this action against Judge O'Donnell, asserting that in the wake of this Court's decision in Cleveland, 159 Ohio St.3d 459, 2020-Ohio-337, 152 N.E.3d 172, the common pleas court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the underlying case. The Supreme Court denied Judge O'Donnell's motion to dismiss, denied Parma's first motion to intervene, and granted an alternative writ. The Supreme Court later granted Parma's second motion to intervene. According to this Court's Opinion, the central question here is whether the Court of Claims Act, R.C. 2743.01, et seq., patently and unambiguously divests the common pleas court of jurisdiction in the underlying case. To answer that question, the Supreme Court must determine whether Parma brought a legal or equitable claim in the underlying case. The Bureau argues that Parma brought a legal claim that belongs in the Court of Claims and that Parma has employed artful labels to disguise its claim as equitable. Judge O'Donnell and Parma disagree, stressing that the complaint in the underlying case advances a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. The absence of a legal claim requesting damages, they contend, means that Judge O'Donnell has jurisdiction over the underlying case. The Supreme Court agrees with the Bureau. To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, the Bureau must establish that (1) Judge O'Donnell has exercised judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. If the common pleas court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction, then the Bureau need not establish the lack of an adequate legal remedy. The Supreme Court holds that the Bureau is entitled to a writ of prohibition because Judge O'Donnell patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the underlying case. To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the Bureau must show (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of Judge O'Donnell to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio-2637, 889 N.E.2d 500, Para. 15, the Supreme Court concluded that because the court of appeals patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over an appeal, the Relator was entitled to both a peremptory writ of prohibition preventing the court from proceeding over the appeal and a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling the court to dismiss the appeal. Applying that logic here, the Supreme Court grants a writ of mandamus ordering Judge O'Donnell to dismiss the underlying case. Judge O'Donnell's contrary argument, that mandamus cannot lie because the Bureau has an adequate remedy by way of appeal, is foreclosed by Sapp. For these reasons, the Supreme Court grants a writ of prohibition ordering Judge O'Donnell to stop exercising jurisdiction over the underlying case, and grants a writ of mandamus ordering Judge O'Donnell to dismiss the underlying case for lack of jurisdiction. Writs granted. KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ., concur. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/afukev6u from Leagle.com. Dave Yost -- dave.yost@ohioattorneygeneral.gov -- Attorney General, and Sandra Nimrick -- Sandra.Nimrick@ohioattorneygeneral.gov -- Assistant Attorney General; and Taft Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., James D. Abrams -- jabrams@taftlaw.com -- David J. Butler -- dbutler@taftlaw.com -- David C. Roper -- droper@taftlaw.com -- Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- for the Relator. Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jake A. Elliott and Matthew T. Fitzsimmons IV, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for the Respondent. Flowers & Grube, Paul W. Flowers -- pwf@pwfco.com -- Louis E. Grube -- leg@pwfco.com -- Melissa A. Ghrist -- mag@pwfco.com -- Bashein & Bashein Co., L.P.A., W. Craig Bashein -- cbashein@basheinlaw.com -- John P. Hurst -- jhurst@basheinlaw.com -- Plevin & Gallucci and Frank Gallucci -- fgallucci@pglawyer.com -- and Weisman, Kennedy & Berris Co., L.P.A., and Daniel P. Goetz, for the Intervening Respondent. PHYTAGE LABORATORIES: Baker Sues Over Unsolicited Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHYTAGE LABORATORIES, Case No. 1:23-cv-10465-IT (D. Mass., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought against the Defendant regarding Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing messages to the telephones of Plaintiff and other consumers without the prior express written consent of the call recipients. The Plaintiff's residential phone number has been registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry since November 4, 2004. Plaintiff was the subscriber who registered his residential phone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The Defendant and/or one of Defendant's agents texted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone three times between March 25, 2021, through March 27, 2021. The Defendant and/or one of Defendant's agents placed this message without the Plaintiff's prior consent. These messages were sent for the purpose of marketing Defendant's vitamin supplement products. On March 27, 2021, Plaintiff replied "STOP" to Defendant's telemarketing messages. Immediately, another text message appeared informing Plaintiff that he was unsubscribed from Defendant's messaging list. The Plaintiff knows these texts were made by Defendant and/or one of Defendant's agents because a link was provided in each message directing Plaintiff back to Defendant's website. Although Plaintiff had visited Defendant's website, he has never purchased any items from Defendant and never provided consent to receive telemarketing messages from Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has resided in and has been a citizen of the State of Vermont. The Defendant is a manufacturer of vitamin supplements that generates substantial profits from soliciting its products through telemarketing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com PINERY CLEANERS: Meija Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vanessa Meija, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PINERY CLEANERS INC. (D/B/A ACE CLEANERS) and WON K. CHO AKA JAMES CHO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01669 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. In this regard, the Defendants have failed to provide timely wages to the Plaintiff. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a manager at the laundry service. The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a laundromat, located in New York City under the name "Ace Cleaners."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 POLOLO'S FRIED: Gonzalez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROMAILIN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POLOLO'S FRIED CHICKEN CORP. d/b/a Johnny's Fried Chicken, a New York corporation, and GLADYS ARISTY, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01533 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay an additional hour's pay for each day of Plaintiff's spread of hours, failure to provide with a written wage notice, and failure to furnish with wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from March 21, 2022 until January 18, 2023 as a general restaurant worker and her job duties included cleaning, selling food items, and other such general tasks. Pololo's Fried Chicken Corp. operates a restaurant known as Johnny's Fried Chicken located in Bronx, 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 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com POPULUS FINANCIAL: Court Issues Final Judgment in Barragan Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a Final Judgment in the lawsuit entitled NUVIA BARRAGAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. POPULUS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-08021-SB-MRW (C.D. Cal.). Pursuant to the Court's order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement and service awards and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs, and the parties' voluntary dismissal of this case, Judge Blumenfeld issued a final judgment as follows. Pursuant to the parties' settlement, Plaintiffs Nuvia Barragan, Itzel Legorreta-Cruzalta, Javier Ramirez, and Damali Urbina-Fajardo and all other class members (except for Karen Johnson) will have, by operation of this Judgment, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged Defendant Populus Financial Group, Inc., and all of its past and present officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, principals, heirs, representatives, accountants, auditors, consultants, and their respective successors and predecessors in interest, subsidiaries, affiliates, parents and attorneys, from the claims defined in the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (Stipulation). Plaintiffs Nuvia Barragan, Itzel Legorreta-Cruzalta, Javier Ramirez, and Damali Urbina-Fajardo and all other class members (except for Karen Johnson) are enjoined from filing or prosecuting any other cases, claims, suits, or administrative proceedings involving their released claims. The settlement fund is to be distributed to the class members according to the terms of the Stipulation. The funds for any check that remains uncashed after 180 days from the date of mailing will be paid to the State Controller Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the class member who does not timely negotiate his/her Individual Settlement Award check. In such event, the class members whose checks remain uncashed after 180 days, will nevertheless remain subject to the terms of the judgment. Pursuant to the Court's order, Class Counsel will be paid $291,666 as their attorneys' fees and actual costs of $17,965 from the settlement fund. Plaintiffs Nuvia Barragan, Itzel Legorreta-Cruzalta, Javier Ramirez, and Damali Urbina-Fajardo will each be paid a Service Award in the amount of $7,500 (for a total of $30,000). The Settlement Administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., will be paid $22,450 from the settlement fund for the costs and expenses of administering the settlement. A payment of $37,500 from the settlement fund will be allocated to penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq., and paid by the Settlement Administrator directly to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The Court enters judgment for Plaintiffs Nuvia Barragan, Itzel Legorreta-Cruzalta, Javier Ramirez, and Damali Urbina-Fajardo and the class members against Defendant Populus Financial Group, Inc., in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, and this order is a final and appealable order. The case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment dated Feb. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/27v9yauk from Leagle.com. PRESTIGE CAR: Faces Uribe Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR JULIAN CARDONA URIBE and FREDY SANTIAGO BONILLA LAGOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRESTIGE CAR CARE OF NY INC. and EDDIE GARCIA, as an individual,, Case No. 1:23-cv-01853 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 3, 2023) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment by Defendants located at 800 11th Avenue, Manhattan, New York. As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages. The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 PRIME STYLE LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Style LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Prime Style LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01695 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Primestyle -- https://primestyle.com/ -- offers you a new way of shopping for the finest jewelry and diamonds that compliment your lifestyle.[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 PSP GROUP LLC: Popa Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ashley Popa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PSP Group LLC doing business as: Pet Supplies Plus, Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01357-NR was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00294-JLR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. PSP Group LLC doing business as Pet Supplies Plus -- https://www.petsuppliesplus.com/ -- is a privately held pet supply retailing corporation with a major presence in the US.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com NickC@lcllp.com The Defendants are represented by: James L. Rockney, Esq. REED SMITH (PA) 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 288-3131 Email: jrockney@reedsmith.com - and - John G. Papianou, Esq. MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP 1735 Market St, 21st Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103-7505 Phone: (215) 772-1500 Email: jpapianou@mmwr.com RANCHO MESQUITE: Faces Class Suit Over Massive Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Philip Conneller of Casino.org reports that Nevada-based Rancho Mesquite Casinos "failed to maintain adequate data security," which led to the theft of the personal information of more than 200K customers and employees. That's according to a class action lawsuit filed last week in a US District Court for the District of Nevada. A "massive" cyberattack hit the company's systems for several days around Nov. 9, 2022. This resulted in hackers accessing personal data, including full names, Social Security numbers, and driving license numbers. Additional sensitive data may have been involved, including financial account numbers and debit and credit card numbers, the suit claims. Rancho Mesquite owns the Rising Star Sports Ranch Resort in Mesquite and The Brook in Seabrook, NH. It also operates the Eureka casinos in Las Vegas and Mesquite, although these properties have separate ownership, and their data structure wasn't affected by the breach. A Month Too Late Not only were the company's data protection and cyber security protocols inadequate, according to the lawsuit. But it also failed to notify customers of the breach in a timely manner. Impacted individuals were warned that their details had been compromised on or about Dec. 9, 2022, a month after the incident occurred. It's the kind of delay that can prove costly, according to research by the US nonprofit consumer group Consumer Reports. "One thing that does matter is hearing about a data breach quickly. That alerts consumers to keep a tight watch on credit card bills and suspicious emails," the group said. "It can prompt them to change passwords and freeze credit reports . . . . If consumers don't know about a breach because it wasn't reported, they can't take action to protect themselves." Potential Fraud The plaintiffs claim the breach has exposed customers to potential fraud now and in the future and nuisance spam phone calls, text messages, and phishing emails. "Simply put, plaintiff and class members now face [a] substantial risk of out-of-pocket fraud losses such as loans opened in their names, medical services billed in their names, tax return fraud, utility bills opened in their names, credit card fraud, and similar identity theft," asserted the lawsuit. The complaint accuses the company of negligence and breach of contract. It asks a jury to award class members monetary damages and to order Rancho Mesquite to tighten its security measures. The company hasn't responded to requests for comment. [GN] REAL ESTATE: Faces Suit Over Realtors' Price-Fixing Commissions --------------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Consky of CTVNews.ca reports that real estate broker weighs in on class-action lawsuit against realtor commissions. A proposed class-action lawsuit alleges that some of Canada's largest brokerages and real-estate associations are engaged in price-fixing to inflate Realtor commissions. Brokerages named in the lawsuit include ReMax, Century 21, and IproRealtyLtd., as well as the Canadian Real Estate Association and the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board. The lawsuit claims that there is an agreement, among brokerages in the Greater Toronto Area, which applies to any individual listing on the Toronto Multiple Listing Service (MLS). "When it comes to listing your home for sale, you typically sign an agreement with a listing brokerage," broker and real estate commentator David Fleming told CTV's Your Morning on Monday Morning. "You pay a fee and then usually half or some of that fee is offered as an inducement to a buyer agent. So this suit is alleging that there is a fix of two and a half per cent, which is what the suit said, that basically forces people to offer that." Fleming explained that, on MLS, "you'll see a lot of two per cent commissions, a lot of half a per cent to one per cent through discount brokerages. There's a lot that offer one dollar, which is effectively a for-sale-by-owner, where you as a buyer or agent have to negotiate directly with the seller." "So we'll see ultimately where the case goes and I think there's more to this than what meets the eye." Currently, a seller has to make an offer of commission to the buyer's brokerage. The buyer's brokerage-commission-rule essentially forces a seller to offer the industry standard commission to the buyer brokerages. If they don't, then fewer brokerages will show that home to interested buyers. "If you go back, say, sixty or seventy or eighty years, if you as a buyer wanted to purchase a property you would physically walk into a brokerage and say, 'What do you have for sale?' If they had something that you liked you would buy it through them – through the seller's agent," Fleming said. "That was multiple representation, it was a conflict of interest, but that was the standard. Now, if you wanted, let's say, to have representation and you hired an agent, they would still only show you their listings under contract. So that's anti-competitive, as we would know it today. Eventually someone had the bright idea to say, 'why don't we co-operate? Why don't we offer a brokerage commission, say half of our listing fee, to a buyer agent for bringing us a buyer?' And that's the system that we have today where everybody co-operates and you have the MLS system." Fleming maintains that the system works in Canada. "People just need to understand it," he added. "I'll be honest, I don't think there's a lot of merit [to the case] just from what I see," he said. "There have been a lot of lawsuits at the industry level over the years, but nothing has really been successful. But I'll be interested to see what happens." CTV's Your Morning reached out to both Toronto Regional Real Estate Board and the Canadian Real Estate Association. Both of them declined to comment as this issue is before the courts. [GN] REGAL MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a class action lawsuit claims the negligence of four major healthcare networks in Southern California resulted in a "foreseeable" data breach that compromised the personal information of over three million patients in a case-captioned Downs et al. v. Regal Medical Group, Inc. et al., Sections 2:23-CV-01507. A proposed class action lawsuit claims the negligence of four major healthcare networks in Southern California resulted in a "foreseeable" data breach that compromised the personal information of over three million patients. Regal Medical Group, Inc.; Lakeside Medical Organization, A Medical Group, Inc.; Affiliated Doctors of Orange County Medical Group, Inc.; and Greater Covina Medical Group, Inc. are accused of failing to protect patients' data from hackers who gained access to the defendants' network on December 1, 2022, the 67-page lawsuit alleges. According to the suit, though the healthcare groups’ employees reportedly began having trouble accessing some of the servers on December 2, the defendants did not discover the data breach until December 8. The case relays that the sensitive personal information of around 3,300,638 current and former patients was compromised by the breach and included patients' Social Security numbers, dates of birth, full names, home addresses, telephone numbers, medical treatment details, diagnoses, prescription data, laboratory test results, radiology reports and health plan membership numbers. As the complaint tells it, the cyberattack was a direct result of the healthcare networks' failure to implement sufficient cybersecurity measures to protect the private data stored in their servers. The filing charges that if their security systems had been adequately monitored, the defendants would have detected the unauthorized access sooner. The lawsuit also takes issue with the healthcare groups' delayed notification of affected victims. Though the breach was discovered in early December, notices were not sent out to those impacted until approximately two months later, on February 1, 2023, the suit says. As the filing claims, current and former patients gave their private data to the defendants with the expectation that the medical groups would comply with their legal duties to safeguard it from unauthorized disclosure. However, the two-month delay in notification "virtually ensured" that the cybercriminals could "monetize, misuse and/or disseminate" the stolen data before victims could take action to secure their private information, the case contends. What's more, the notices themselves provided scant details to victims and failed to mention how long the hackers had had access to patients' data and what precise information was compromised, the complaint relays. The three plaintiffs, California residents, received notice of the data breach in February 2023 and learned that their sensitive medical information had been compromised, the lawsuit explains. Between December 2022 and February of this year, one plaintiff reports having received numerous alerts of fraudulent activity, including an unauthorized attempt to register for a credit card in her name and a notice that her Social Security number had been breached. Another plaintiff was notified in December of last year that an unknown third party had tried to access her credit card, the suit shares. In February of this year, the woman's bank canceled her debit card and deactivated her account due to fraudulent activity, the case adds. Though the defendants have offered data breach victims one year of complimentary credit monitoring, the complaint argues that the gesture is wholly inadequate in the face of victims' "lifelong risk" of identity theft, medical fraud, and other illegal activity. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose personal information was compromised in the December 2022 data breach. [GN] RITE AID: S.D. New York Dismisses Martelli Suit With Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JAMIE MARTELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-10079 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M. Halpern of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff Jamie Martelli brings this putative class action against Rite Aid Corporation alleging that the labeling on the Defendant's "Toddler Beginnings" transition formula is deceptive and misleading. The Plaintiff asserts a claim for relief for violations of New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350. The Plaintiff initially also pressed claims for violation of state consumer fraud acts, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. However, at the June 9, 2022 pre-motion conference regarding the filing of the instant motion, the Plaintiff's counsel represented to the Court that he intended to withdraw his request for injunctive relief, as well as all claims for relief except for those brought under the GBL. Accordingly, the Court directed the Plaintiff to prepare and send to the Defendant for review a proposed order and stipulation withdrawing from the complaint all claims except for those made pursuant to NY GBL Sections 349 and 350, and any references to injunctive relief. The Plaintiff withdrew all claims, except those brought under the GBL, as well as the request for injunctive relief. Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Defendant moved to dismiss on July 15, 2022, in accordance with the briefing schedule set by the Court. The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells the "Toddler Beginnings" transition formula under the "Tugaboos" brand. While infant formulas are an alternative where breastfeeding is not an option for children 0-12 months, transition formulas, such as Toddler Beginnings, are marketed to be used to fill "nutrition gaps," for children beyond 12 months. The Plaintiff alleges that the Toddler Beginnings label misled her into believing that the product is nutritionally adequate for children over a year. The Plaintiff alleges that contrary to the representations on the label, Toddler Beginnings is nutritionally inadequate for children because: (i) it contains added sugars; and (ii) it contains less protein, more carbohydrates, and more fat than cow's milk. The Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the Product on one or more occasions from the Defendant's stores, including the location at 709 Main Street, in Poughkeepsie, New York 12601. She alleges that she read and relied "on the words and images" on the product label and bought the product because she expected it was nutritionally appropriate for children in the age range identified. Finally, the Plaintiff 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's sole claim for relief alleges violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350. The Defendant raises two arguments relevant to the Plaintiff's GBL claims: (i) the Plaintiff has not suffered an injury; and (ii) the Toddler Beginnings label is not materially misleading. Judge Halpern notes that the court in Gordon v. Target Corp., No. 20-CV-9589, 2022 WL 836773 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2022), addressed virtually identical claims to those at issue here. The court in Gordon held that the plaintiff failed to allege injury with respect to her GBL claim because she only "vaguely" alleged that she relied on the representations on the label and failed to identify a single 'specific advertisement or public pronouncement' on which she relied in purchasing the Product. The same is true here, Judge Halpern holds. The Plaintiff alleges in a conclusory fashion that she relied on the words and images on the Product, on the labeling and/or claims made by the Defendant in digital and/or social media. However, as in Gordon, Judge Halpern holds that the Plaintiff fails to state which specific representations on the Toddler Beginnings labeling or advertising she relied on when making her purchase. Accordingly, Judge Halpern finds that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead an injury in connection with her claim alleging violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350. That claim, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Equally, even if the Plaintiff were able to show an injury--which she is not--the Plaintiff's GBL claim would fail separately because the label at issue is not materially misleading, Judge Halpern holds. The Plaintiff alleges that the Toddler Beginnings label was deceptive for three reasons: (i) the label is confusingly similar to the Defendant's infant formula label, thereby, giving consumers the incorrect impression that the formula is nutritionally adequate for children over a year; (ii) the label misleads consumers into believing that the product has a nutritional value comparable to cow's milk; and (ii) the label's "Non-GMO" representation is misleading. Judge Halpern opines that the Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350 based on the alleged (i) similarity between the labels of Toddler Beginnings and the Defendant's infant formula product; (ii) misrepresentations regarding the nutritional value of Toddler Beginnings; and (iii) misrepresentations regarding the label's "Non-GMO" representation. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 30, and to close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mxc6vzw4 from Leagle.com. ROUTE 41: Pinkerton Seeks Drivers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Norman Pinkerton, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Route 41 Pizza, LLC; Dough Management Inc.; Susan Graves; Dave Randall; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Case No. 0:23-cv-00459 (D. Minn., Feb. 24, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Wisconsin wage and hour laws, and appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief. The Plaintiff seeks to represent an FLSA collective class of the delivery drivers who have worked at the Team Honey Badger stores who choose to opt in to this action. The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and Wisconsin wage and hour laws by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked, the Plaintiff contends. Accordingly, when there are no deliveries to make, the Defendants' delivery drivers are required to work inside the Team Honey Badger stores folding boxes, doing dishes, stocking coolers, mopping and sweeping the floor, taking the trash out, preparing food, and completing other duties inside the restaurant as necessary, says the suit. Because the Defendants paid their drivers a gross hourly wage at precisely, or at least very close to, the applicable minimum wage, and because the delivery drivers incurred unreimbursed automobile expenses, the delivery drivers "kicked back" to Defendants an amount sufficient to cause minimum wage violations, the Plaintiff adds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey W. Kobbervig, Esq. KOBBERVIG LAW LLC 1624 Harmon Pl Ste 300G Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (651) 357-0111 E-mail: corey@kobberviglaw.com www.KobbervigLaw.com - and - Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com www.billerkimble.com RTR FINANCIAL: Jacobowitz Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Debt --------------------------------------------------------------- Isaac Jacobowitz, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers v. RTR FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 506364/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") by disclosing debt to third-party vendor. On a date better known to Defendant, Plaintiff Jacobowitz allegedly incurred a medical bill. The medical bill was then transmitted to RTR for collections. In an attempt to collect the debt, Defendant 6. Sent Plaintiff a collection letter dated June 7th, 2022. The letter was not sent from Defendant itself; Defendant utilized a third-party vendor to send the letter. In doing so, Defendant disclosed Plaintiff's personal information to a third party in violation of the FDCPA, including the fact that Plaintiff owed a medical debt, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and is a "consumer." RTR Financial Services, Inc. is a corporation that regularly conducts business in New York and is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: 862)227-3106 Fax: (973) 282-8603 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com RYDER INTEGRATED: Keefer Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Salnave Keefer filed an appeal from a District Court's Order and Judgment dated February 1, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled SALNAVE KEEFER, Plaintiff v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07503-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit was initially filed in the Superior Court in the State of California, Alameda County before it was transferred to the Northern District of California on September 27, 2021. According to the complaint, Mr. Keefer applied to work for the Defendants and as part of the application process, Ryder provided Mr. Keefer with a disclosure and authorization form to perform a background investigation. Neither party disputed that Ryder provided Mr. Keefer with two disclosures: 1) a Background Investigation Disclosure (which Mr. Keefer received twice), and 2) a Reports Disclosure. The Reports Disclosure indicated that it was signed by Mr. Keefer on April 13, 2020. Mr. Keefer brings this putative class action complaint against Ryder for failure to make proper disclosure under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the Northern District of California, entered an Order on Feb. 1, 2023 granting the Defendants' March 7, 2022 motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of the Court also entered judgment in favor of the Defendants and closed the case. The appellate case is captioned as Salnave Keefer v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-15225, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Feb. 21, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Salnave Keefer Mediation Questionnaire was due on Feb. 28, 2023; -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 20, 2023; -- Transcript is due on April 18, 2023; -- Appellant Salnave Keefer opening brief is due on May 30, 2023; -- Appellees Hadco Metal Trading Co., LLC and Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. answering brief is due on June 27, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SALNAVE KEEFER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: William Matthew Pao, Esq. Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Defendants-Appellees RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and HADCO METAL TRADING CO., LLC, a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Kimberly F. Seten, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2350 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 472-6400 SEAWORLD PARKS: Lomeli Sues Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal ----------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Lomeli and Daniel Blanco, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, SEA WORLD, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-5, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00008529-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought on behalf of consumers who purchased Annual Passes to the SeaWorld San Diego Park and who incurred auto-renewal fees after the expiration of 12 months which violates the California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"). The Defendants sell, promote, and advertise Annual Passes to the SeaWorld San Diego Park to consumers directly through the SeaWorld San Diego website and software application. The Defendants had, and continue to have, a uniform policy and practice of automatically renewing SeaWorld San Diego Annual Passes at the end of 12 months without providing the automatic renewal offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner prior to the consumer's purchase, without obtaining affirmative consent to the automatic renewal offer terms prior to the consumer's purchase, and without providing consumers with a reminder notice 15 to 45 days prior to the cancellation deadline or renewal date that informs the consumer that their pass will automatically renew unless they cancel. And Defendants' cancellation mechanism obstructs or delays consumers from terminating their Annual Passes, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased Annual Passes to the SeaWorld San Diego Park through SeaWorld's website. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc. and Sea World LLC d/b/a Sea World San own and operate various amusement parks and water parks throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Grace E. Parasmo, Esq. Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq. PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW 7119 W. Sunset Blvd., #808 Los Angeles, CA 90046 Phone: (646) 509-3913 Email: gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com - and - Zack Broslavsky, Esq. Jonathan A. Weinman, Esq. BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP 1500 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 500 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Phone: (310) 575-2550 SERVICE WEST: De Leon Class Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO DE LEON, as an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERVICE WEST, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV028511 (Cal. Super., Feb. 28, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and overtime wages, in violation of California's minimum and overtime wage law. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked by virtue of, Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during unpaid meal periods or otherwise 16 11 unlawful practices for missed or improper meal periods, the Plaintiff contends. The Class Members were consistently unable to take timely, off duty, thirty-minute, uninterrupted meal periods, often being forced to take late meal periods, interrupted meal periods, and/or work through part or all their meal periods due to understaffing, the nature and constraints of their job duties and/or commentary from supervisors pressuring them to take non-compliant meal periods or skip meal periods completely. The Defendants issued wage statements to the Plaintiff and Class Members that also failed to indicate the earned gross and net wages earned during the pay period, the correct applicable rates of pay for all hours worked, and the total hours worked by the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an installer, modular installer, modular carpenter and/or similar title(s). The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee, from March 2018 through the separation of his employment in April 2019, and subsequently employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from November 2021 through the present. Service West is an independent contract furniture installation 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 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com SERVICE WEST: De Leon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio De Leon, as an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERVICE WEST, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV028511 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure to seek unpaid minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and overtime wages. the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked by virtue of, the Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for missed or improper meal periods, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendants in the State of California as a non-exempt employee. The Defendants own, operate, or otherwise manage a commercial furniture installation, warehousing and logistics business.[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 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com SIAM MARINA: Long Seeks Bartenders' Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LONG, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. SIAM MARINA OF TINLEY PARK, INC., an Illinois Corporation, and TAMMY PHAM, individually, and SAPION CHUNG, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-01231 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other hospitality workers worked in excess of 40 hours per week but the Defendants failed to pay them overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated demand liquidated damages for the untimely payment of wages after the scheduled pay date; payment of unpaid minimum wages for every hour worked during applicable pay periods, together with reasonable attorney's fees and costs, the suit says. The Plaintiff worked as a bartender taking orders over the phone from customers and from third-party online vendors. Siam Marina creates Asian Fusion cuisine featuring traditional Thai, Vietnamese, and French cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. Franklin Jara, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 568-3056 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 E-mail: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com fjara@sulaimanlaw.com SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend Sherman Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sherman Antitrust Act-related consolidated class suit in Illinois. Twenty-two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company following published reports of the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on November 6, 2020. Since then, the Plaintiffs have served the Defendants with written discovery requests and have begun taking depositions of the employees of the defendants and certain third parties. The Court has set a pretrial schedule which currently requires discovery to be completed by April 15, 2023 and briefing on class certification to be completed by September 1, 2023. The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims. Headquartered in Hunt Valley, Cockeysville, Maryland, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting company. SOCCER WEARHOUSE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soccer Wearhouse, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Soccer Wearhouse, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01717 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Soccer Wearhouse, Inc. -- https://soccerwearhouse.com/ -- offers the latest soccer gear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com SOUTHERN SPECIALIZED: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Maykel A. Castillo, Pilar Vazquez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Southern Specialized Security LLC, Julio Sanchez Cordero, and Damaris Hernandez, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-20792-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought to recover monetary damages for regular unpaid wages and retaliation under United States laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on May 2021, (the "material time") without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiffs were not paid timely on the designated payment day. The Plaintiffs did not clock in and out, but they signed timesheets, and the Defendants were in absolute control of the Plaintiffs' schedule and activities. The Defendants knew the number of hours that the Plaintiffs were working. Therefore, the Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs performed as security guards. The Defendant provides security services and, through its business activity, affects interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Trahan Sues Over Consultants' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRYAN TRAHAN, individually and for others similarly situated v. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CORPORATION,, Case No. 4:23-cv-00734 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Southwestern Energy under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Trahan typically worked 84-140 hours a week, well in excess of the 40-hour threshold for overtime compensation. Trahan's work schedule is typical of the Day Rate Workers. Although Trahan and the Day Rate Workers typically work 12-20 hours a day, for 7 days a week, they do not receive any overtime compensation for the hours they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Instead of paying Trahan and the Day Rate Workers overtime, SWN classified these workers as independent contractors and paid them a flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate") with no overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA. Accordingly, Trahan and the Day Rate Workers are entitled to overtime wages under the FLSA in an amount equal to 1.5 times their regular hourly rates of pay, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs, the lawsuit contends. Trahan worked for SWN as a Drilling Consultant from December 2021 until July 2022. SWN bills itself as "among the largest natural gas and natural gas liquid producers in the United States . .. primarily engaged in the production and development of natural gas, natural gas liquids, and crude oil within the nation's most prolific shale gas basins."[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 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com STATE FARM: Toms' Bid to Extend Sealing of Docs Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants in part the Plaintiff's motion to extend the sealing of unredacted documents in the lawsuit titled DAVID TOMS, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-736-KKM-JSS (M.D. Fla.). The Plaintiff asks the Court to extend the sealing of unredacted documents filed in support of his Motion for Class Certification for one year. The Defendant does not oppose the Motion. On Jan. 27, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to file under seal unredacted versions of his life insurance policies, policy applications, and annual policy statements. In its order, the Court directed that the documents will remain under seal for 90 days after the case is closed and all appeals are exhausted in accordance with Middle District of Florida Local Rule 1.11(f), but permitted the Plaintiff to seek additional and further relief regarding the expiration of the seal in accordance with Local Rule 1.11. On Nov. 22, 2022, the parties filed a notice of settlement and joint motion for a continued stay pending the approval of a nationwide class action settlement in the Western District of Missouri, which would encompass the claims filed in this Court. Based on the parties' representations, the Court dismissed this matter without prejudice on Nov. 28, 202, and closed the case. The Court further directed the parties to submit a stipulated judgment or move to reopen the action no later than May 1, 2023, and after that date, dismissal will be with prejudice. In light of the Court's order closing the case, the seal granted by the Court expired on Feb. 26, 2023. In the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks an order extending the court-ordered seal for one year. Upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion, the Court continues to find good cause to seal the requested documents as explained in its prior order. However, the Court does not find good cause to extend the seal for one year. Here, the court has ordered dismissal of the action to be with prejudice, absent a motion by the parties, after May 1, 2023. Thus, the unredacted documents will remain under seal for 90 days after this action has been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Court's Nov. 28, 2022 order or another order of the Court. At that time, the Plaintiff may move the court to release the documents so that further sealing will not be required. Accordingly, Judge Sneed rules that the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Continue Seal is granted in part. The unredacted documents identified in the Plaintiff's Motion and filed under seal pursuant to the Court's prior order will remain under seal for 90 days after this action has been dismissed with prejudice by order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/22m469jf from Leagle.com. STEWART SURFBOARDS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stewart Surfboards, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Stewart Surfboards, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01724 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stewart Surfboards -- https://stewartsurfboards.com/ -- designs and builds boards.[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 SYNGENTA CORP: H & R Sues for Monopoly of Crop Protection Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ H & R FARMS II, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG, CORTEVA, INC., BASF SE, BASF CORP., and BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00249 (W.D. La., Feb. 23, 2023) seeks to recover damages in the form of overcharges that Plaintiff and the Class members incurred due to Defendants' alleged violations of antitrust laws in the markets for certain pesticides, as well as for violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in conspiracies with distributors to illegally extend and maintain their respective monopolies with respect to certain crop protection products by entering into loyalty programs to delay generic competition. As a result of Defendants' and the distributors' conduct, Defendants have restrained competition, maintained unlawful monopolies, and harmed America's farmers, reducing choices for these farmers and costing them millions of dollars in overcharges, says the suit. Plaintiff H & R Farms II is a farm partnership headquartered in Gueydan, Louisiana. Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. Kyle Oxford, Esq. Quinn M. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com koxford@burnscharest.com qburns@burnscharest.com - and - Korey Nelson, Esq. Amanda Klevorn, Esq. Hannah Quicksell, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal St. #1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 779-2845 E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com aklevorn@burnscharest.com hquicksell@burnscharest.com TASTE OF ITALY: Faces Capir Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- SILVIA TECUN CAPIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TASTE OF ITALY PIZZERIA INC. d/b/a LA PEQUENA TASTE OF ITALY PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT and SEGUNDO CARLOS BERMEJO, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01420 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges Defendants' violations of the federal and state laws by failing to provide proper overtime and minimum wage pay, failing to pay wages for all hours worked, and failing to furnish accurate wage statements and written notices. Plaintiff Capir was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer and cook while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from January 2019 until March 2020 and from March 2021 until January 2023. Taste of Italy Pizzeria Inc., d/b/a La Pequena Taste of Italy Pizzeria & Restaurant, is a pizza restaurant based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 TELADOC HEALTH: Thomas Class Suit Settlement Wins Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- Teladoc Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the District Court for the District of Massachusetts gave its final approval to the Thomas class suit settlement on October 27, 2022. On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint (Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc. The complaint alleges that on or about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") by sending unsolicited facsimiles to plaintiff and certain other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. On May 27, 2022, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the terms of a tentative settlement reached by the parties and conditionally certified the settlement class. On October 27, 2022, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. Teladoc Health, Inc. is a healthcare company based in New York. TIKTOK INC: Faces Federal Class Suit Over Data, National Security ----------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey's Fifth District reports that on March 6, 2023, at the Bergen County Justice Center, U.S. Congressman Josh Gottheimer joined with New Jersey's cybersecurity agency to sound the alarm on the threats TikTok and the Chinese Communist Party pose to the safety of our children, our data, and our national security. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made it abundantly clear that it is willing to leverage technology to breach United States institutions, steal our intellectual property, collect data on our children and all U.S. citizens, and access the systems that control our critical infrastructure. TikTok has more than 100 million monthly active users, collects far-reaching and sophisticated data from its users, including usernames, passwords, personally identifiable information, pictures, and videos of millions of Americans. The U.S. military, federal government, and many state governments, including New Jersey, have banned TikTok on government-issued devices. TikTok and the Chinese government are a threat to America's national security and children: -- China-based employees of TikTok have repeatedly accessed non-public data about American TikTok users. -- In 2019, the FTC fined TikTok for knowingly collecting the names, email addresses, pictures, and locations of children under the age of 13 without parental consent. -- In 2022, TikTok agreed to a class-action settlement for harvesting U.S. personal data from users without their consent. -- In 2022, TikTok confirmed that China-based employees could gain remote access to Americans' data, including public videos and comments. -- Chinese law obligates TikTok's parent company to "support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work." -- TikTok's extreme prevalence in America has given the Chinese government unfettered access and information to our children and Americans. -- Studies show that TikTok's addictive qualities may have a negative impact on children's mental health. The algorithm is designed to keep users engaged longer, and studies show the more kids and teens spend on social media, the more likely they will be depressed. -- A Fifth District 13-year-old girl recently had her TikTok account hacked, and changed from private to public -- exposing her identity, pictures, and videos. The hacker changed her password and she was completely locked out of the account. Gottheimer's team was able to contact TikTok to get the account deleted. -- China is America's biggest global threat and it has made clear its willingness to use cyberwarfare and surveillance tactics to breach U.S. institutions. -- A Chinese state-sponsored hacking group successfully compromised the computer networks of at least six U.S. state governments between May 2021 and February this year. Gottheimer's actions to combat the threat of Chinese-owned TikTok: -- Gottheimer is pushing for legislation that would grant the President the power to ban TikTok in the United States, or force the sale of its U.S. operations to an American company -- if the President believes there is continued data collection and a clear threat to our national security. -- Gottheimer is writing to TikTok, once again demanding that they immediately cease all data collection of personally identifiable information on American citizens, beginning with our children. Last year, Gottheimer and his Problem Solvers Caucus Co-Chair Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick wrote a letter to the CEO of TikTok questioning their child data privacy policies and data uses. In response, TikTok made no commitment to protect our country and our children. "It's time we gave the President the tools to fight back against TikTok's information invasion against America's families. In the wrong hands, this data is an enormous asset to the Chinese Communist Party -- a known adversary -- and their malign activities. In fact, Chinese law obligates TikTok's parent company to, and I quote, 'support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work.' So TikTok is basically bought and paid for by the Chinese government." said Congressman Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5), a member of the House Intelligence Committee. "I'm taking two concrete steps to battle TikTok's assault on our children's privacy. Last July, I wrote a letter to the CEO of TikTok questioning their child data privacy policies. Their response was stunning, inadequate, unproductive, and frankly insulting, to say the least. They made no commitment to protect both our country and our children. They admitted that they collect data on children, including IP addresses and other device information." "I do want to thank the Congressman for his leadership on addressing the security issues that TikTok and other national security threats involving technology bring to us here in New Jersey and the United States as a whole," said Director of the New Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell & New Jersey's Chief Information Security Officer Michael Geraghty. "We see this as an ongoing threat that the Congressman is addressing here." Gottheimer was joined in Hackensack by the Director of the New Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell & New Jersey's Chief Information Security Officer Michael Geraghty and Bergen County Sheriff Anthony Cureton. Good morning. We're here at the Bergen County Justice Center to sound the alarm and take action against the threats TikTok and its overlord, the Chinese Communist Party, pose to the safety of our children and to America's national security. The lack of transparency and accountability from TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, is leading to grave consequences for our families and this country. As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I believe it's time we put an end to their endless and shameless privacy violations and data collection on our children and families. Listen, I get it. Plenty of teenagers, like my own daughter, love watching and making TikTok videos with their friends -- and so do lots of parents. And the Chinese government loves that they do. They are building lengthy data files on millions of kids across our country, learning and capitalizing on their every move online. They are playing the short-and-long game, and will have this data on them for decades to come -- their habits, their likes, where they shop, and what they read, and, potentially, what's on their devices. Even what they do on their other apps and social media. My friend and Co-Chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick and I wrote TikTok months ago, asking them questions about what they are doing with all of this data. Their response, which I'll get to, was shocking -- and telling. The Chinese Communist Party -- the CCP -- has made it abundantly clear that it is willing to leverage technology to breach United States institutions, steal our intellectual property, collect data on our children and all U.S. citizens, and access the systems that control our critical infrastructure. Just look at the Chinese spy balloon that we shot down last month. This was a completely unacceptable, aggressive, and provocative move by the Chinese government, and -- as a member of the House Intelligence Committee -- I believe that we need to take concrete action to curb China's push to influence, infiltrate, and undermine our country. TikTok is clearly being used as yet another tool in the Chinese government's arsenal against America, and it's high time we address its serious impacts on our children and our national security. It's time we gave the President the tools to fight back against TikTok's information invasion against America's families. First, we know that the popular Chinese social media company, TikTok, has access to our kids' and to Americans' data -- posing a serious threat to our safety, privacy, and security. According to leaked audio from more than eighty internal TikTok meetings, China-based employees of the company have repeatedly accessed non-public data about American TikTok users. Just last year, TikTok agreed to a class-action settlement for harvesting U.S. personal data from users without their consent. Plus, back in 2019, the FTC fined TikTok for knowingly collecting the names, email addresses, pictures, and locations of children under the age of 13 without parental consent. This past November, TikTok confirmed that China-based employees could gain remote access to Americans' data, including public videos and comments. TikTok has more than 100 million monthly active users, collects far-reaching and sophisticated data from its users, including usernames, passwords, personally identifiable information, pictures, and videos of millions of Americans. In the wrong hands, this data is an enormous asset to the Chinese Communist Party -- a known adversary -- and their malign activities. In fact, Chinese law obligates TikTok's parent company to, and I quote, "support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work." So TikTok is basically bought and paid for by the Chinese government. Based on the Chinese Communist Party's dismal track record on data privacy and widespread use of government-sponsored surveillance on companies and citizens, it's no stretch to assume that American data from TikTok has made its way to the Chinese government. Even the U.S. military, federal government, and many state governments, including here in New Jersey, have banned TikTok on government-issued devices. This data can be shared, sold, and stored forever, which raises serious concerns for the safety of American users, of our children, their IP addresses, and other personal information. This data could easily yield sensitive information about users' relationships, behaviors, preferences, and vulnerabilities. It lets the Chinese government build a full profile on all of our citizens, specifically with our children. Plus, it strategically influences what videos and content users are shown. Second, in addition to data privacy risks, TikTok's extreme prevalence in America has given the Chinese government unfettered access to our children. Think about that -- with this one app, China has the ability to control what a generation of kids sees and consumes every single day. I know that for many young people, TikTok is their most used app and a main source of news. That means that through TikTok, China has the ability to slowly and methodically undermine our country by feeding our children CCP propaganda, using the app as a weapon against America. And, China plays the long game. They are willing to wait decades. They have said that the best way to beat America isn't militarily, but from within -- for us to turn on one another and beat ourselves. Based on what's been declassified, the Chinese government sees us like a frog in boiling water -- swimming around, slowly cooking ourselves, as we become more divided and unable to act. Third, I continue to hear concerns from families regarding TikTok's misuse of data. For example, I recently heard from a father in my district whose 13-year-old daughter's TikTok account had been hacked. Her account was changed from private to public -- exposing her identity, pictures, and videos to the entire world. The hacker changed her password, and his daughter was completely locked out of the account. After multiple attempts to contact TikTok for help, they were never able to speak with a representative. The family reached out to me, and my team, and we were able to get ahold of TikTok and get the account completely deleted. But it was no picnic. If it was this easy for a hacker to gain access to this young girl's sensitive information from TikTok, imagine how easy it is for the Chinese government to steal data from every single American who uses the app. Not to mention, we know from studies that social media use is having serious mental health effects on our children, and other risks, like how easy it is to buy drugs through apps, and I have spoken out strongly to encourage immediate reforms. Increased social media use among kids has been linked to development of eating disorders, depression, and other mental health challenges. Our children are worse off because of these apps' addictive qualities, as we saw in a recently released study. It showed that sites like TikTok may have a negative impact on children's mental health. The algorithm is designed to keep users engaged longer, and studies show the more kids and teens spend on social media, the more likely they'll be depressed. TikTok claims that they have a "Kids Mode," but it does little to restrict the content our children see and does even less to protect minors' data. Our children's exposure to explicit, violent, or otherwise dangerous content on TikTok remains unchecked, and without adequate guardrails, our kids will continue to be plagued by serious mental health challenges -- in addition to their massive data theft. I'm taking two concrete steps to battle TikTok's assault on our children's privacy. Last July, I wrote a letter to the CEO of TikTok questioning their child data privacy policies. Their response was stunning, inadequate, unproductive, and frankly insulting, to say the least. They made no commitment to protect both our country and our children. They admitted that they collect data on children, including "IP addresses and other device information." They also admitted that they have a right to collect "information on users they obtain from other sources," including Facebook or Google. Yes, you heard me right. TikTok -- an arm of the Communist Party of China -- admitted that they are stealing and collecting our children's personal and private information. Last week, in what appeared to be an altruistic move, TikTok introduced a new children protection policy for parents, adding to their Family Pairing feature, supposedly limiting the default screen time for those under eighteen to 60 minutes a day -- or seven hours a week. Yes, seven hours. Interestingly, somehow, TikTok left out their greatest profit making and privacy-busting provisions in their new policy. Their big PR move was to limit time -- not to stop stealing our personal and private information. Why won't they commit to stop stealing information about our children? I'll tell you why I think -- this whole thing, TikTok, is part of a grand plan to suck as much personal information and data from our citizens, including a generation of America's children. So, this week, I am writing a follow-up letter to the pablum I received from TikTok this past year, and, again, will demand that TikTok immediately cease all data collection of personally identifiable information on American citizens, beginning with our children. And let me be clear: Unless TikTok immediately stops stealing our children's and citizens' data, I will fight to ban the use of this rogue Chinese Communist government-controlled application that has the potential to damage the lives of so many. I also strongly support legislation that would grant the President the power to ban TikTok in the United States, or force the sale of its U.S. operations to an American company, if the President believes there is continued data collection and a clear threat to our national security. I am working with other members on that legislation right now. Unless I'm missing something, it seems clear to me that the Chinese Communist government is using TikTok to steal data from our children and families. They are using it as a means to infiltrate our citizens, their data, and information that could put our safety and national security at risk. We must give the President the power to take action. Keep in mind, it's not just our children who are at risk. China is our biggest global threat and they have made it clear it is willing to use cyberwarfare tactics to breach United States institutions, and TikTok is a clear and obvious threat to our national security. In fact, a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group successfully compromised the computer networks of at least six U.S. state governments between May 2021 and February this year. To recap, we know that the Chinese government views America as an enemy, we know that they are actively trying to spy on us, we know that TikTok gives the CCP access to millions of Americans' data, and we know that Chinese state-sponsored cyber-crime groups have successfully hacked American state governments. We are running out of time -- and I'm proposing more concrete action. We must take swift, concrete action to protect our national security, safeguard our families, infrastructure, and economy, fight back against foreign aggression, and better the lives of our children. This is about protecting our national security from an adversary who wants to do harm to America's standing as the leader of the free world. It will take every level of government working together to eliminate threats to our national security and private data from TikTok and the Chinese Communist Party. Remember, the Chinese government is the enemy, not each other. Here in the greatest country in the world, if we remember to put our country first, and come together, I know that our best days will always be ahead of us. Thank you, God bless you, God bless our troops, and God bless the United States of America. [GN] TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cherisha Lovejoy, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MDD (S.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought to redress the harms suffered as a result of the Defendants: failure to pay all regular, minimum and overtime wages in violation of Labor Code; failure pay split-shift premiums in violation the applicable IWC Order; failure to provide legally sufficient meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize and permit legally sufficient rest breaks in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages when due at termination in violation of Labor Code; violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") pursuant to Business & Professions Code; and Conversion of wages. The Defendants systematically violated the rights of Plaintiff and the putative class members rights under the California Labor Code. The Defendants did so by failing to pay actual hours worked, but instead paid hours based on estimates of what hours Defendants estimated its employees should work to drive the routes assigned to the respective bus driver. This policy and practice resulted in bus drivers consistently working off of the clock before, during and after shifts. Additionally, Defendants did not build in the ability for bus drivers to take legally adequate meal and rest breaks into the routes they assigned to Plaintiff and putative class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a well-established bus operator and was a dedicated non-exempt employee of Transdev Services Inc. TRANSDEV is a transportation company doing business with municipal transportation systems across the nation, and in San Diego Metro Area through contractual relationships with the Metropolitan Transit System.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Hewgill, Esq. Efaon Cobb, Esq. HEWGILL COBB & LOCKARD, APC 1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 325 San Diego, Ca 92101 Phone: 619-432-2520 Fax: 619-377-6026 Email: Contact@hcl-lawfirm.com - and - Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Joshua A. Fields, Esq. Aya Dardari, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, Ca 92101 Phone: (619) 400-4990 Fax: (310) 399-7040 Email: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com jfields@sshhzlaw.com adardari@sshhzlaw.com TRUSTEDID INC: Dismissal of O'Leary's Claim Under FIFITPA Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRADY O'LEARY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TRUSTEDID, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-2144 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacates the district court's dismissal of O'Leary's claim against TrustedID under South Carolina's Financial Identity Fraud and Identity Theft Protection Act, S.C. Code Ann. Section 37-20-180 and remands with instructions. O'Leary's First Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that nonparty Equifax was subject to a data breach. Equifax then engaged its subsidiary, TrustedID, to use TrustedID's website to inform customers whether they were impacted by the data breach. O'Leary had no other way to learn whether his data had been compromised, so he went to TrustedID's website. The website prompted O'Leary to enter six digits of his social security number ("SSN"). In exchange for this information, the website informed O'Leary that he was "not impacted" by Equifax's data breach. TrustedID didn't use any other security precautions, such as a password, unique personal identification number, or another authentication device. O'Leary alleges that TrustedID shared the six digits of his SSN with Equifax. O'Leary sued TrustedID in state court, alleging that TrustedID's practice of requiring six digits of consumers' SSNs violated the Act and South Carolina's common-law right to privacy. TrustedID removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). O'Leary then filed an Amended Complaint in the federal district court, reasserting the same claims and adding one for negligence. TrustedID moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). While TrustedID's motion was pending, O'Leary filed a Motion to Determine Subject Matter Jurisdiction Or, in the Alternative, to Remand. O'Leary agreed that the case satisfied CAFA. But he asked the district court to "inquire before reaching the merits into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction" under Article III given TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), which had been recently decided. O'Leary took "no position" on whether he'd suffered an Article III injury. TrustedID opposed O'Leary's "puzzling" motion and argued that he had sufficiently alleged standing. The district court held a hearing. It denied O'Leary's motion, holding that he had alleged Article III standing. The court noted the unique posture of a plaintiff questioning his own standing, rather than a defendant raising the issue under Rule 12(b)(1). But it decided that O'Leary's harm allegations, while perhaps scarce, certainly suggest that the Plaintiff is claiming to have suffered some damage as a result of the Defendant's actions. Nonetheless, the district court granted TrustedID's motion to dismiss on the merits, holding that O'Leary had not plausibly stated a claim under the Act or under common-law principles of privacy or negligence. On appeal, O'Leary again notes his concerns as to whether the statutory violation constitutes a concrete injury in fact for Article III standing, but he asks the Fourth Circuit to affirm the district court's holding on standing anyway. He challenges only the district court's dismissal of his claim under the Act, not the dismissal of his common-law privacy and negligence claims. The Fourth Circuit holds that O'Leary has alleged only a bare statutory violation and no Article III injury. So it does not -- and cannot -- reach the question whether he's pleaded facts that state a claim under the Act, though he may presumably pursue that claim in state court. The Fourth Circuit holds that O'Leary hasn't alleged an Article III injury in fact. It's true that general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct can suffice at the pleading stage. But even given that low bar and taking all plausible factual inferences in O'Leary's favor, his complaint doesn't allege an injury that suffices under Article III. The Fourth Circuit opines that O'Leary can't connect the alleged statutory violation to an increased risk of identity theft without a Rube Goldberg-type chain reaction. His position that it would've been fine for TrustedID to require five digits of his SSN -- but not six -- is telling. He's failed to explain how entering six digits increased his risk of identity theft (or otherwise concretely injured him) in a way that five digits wouldn't. This omission betrays the fact that O'Leary relies entirely on a mere procedural violation of a statute, which Article III rejects Nor has O'Leary alleged an injury with a "close relationship" to a traditional or common-law analog. Since O'Leary hasn't pleaded a nonspeculative connection between the alleged statutory violation and identity theft, he appears to rely on some abstract privacy interest in his SSN itself. But such an injury bears no close relationship to a traditional or common-law analog. At bottom, O'Leary hasn't adequately pled that he was injured by the alleged statutory violation at all—much less in a way that closely relates to a traditional analog for a federal lawsuit. It's certainly odd that TrustedID failed to comply with the five-digit SSN cutoff, which doesn't appear to be unique to South Carolina's Act. But federal courts can't entertain a case without a concrete injury in fact. The Fourth Circuit therefore vacates the district court's judgment and remands with instructions to remand the case to state court, where it originated. It offers no opinion about whether the alleged facts state a claim under the Act. Absent Article III jurisdiction, that's a question for O'Leary to take up in state court. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3uzhjw2a from Leagle.com. ARGUED: David Andrew Maxfield -- dave@consumerlawsc.com -- DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for the Appellant. Ashley Charles Parrish -- aparrish@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, Washington, D.C., for the Appellee. ON BRIEF: Justin T. Holcombe, SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP, Woodstock, Georgia, for the Appellant. Gabriel Krimm , Washington, D.C., Zachary A. McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- Robert D. Griest -- rgriest@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for the Appellee. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Cert. Bid in Breach Suit Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- Kara L. Smyth (Toronto) , Dana M Peebles (Toronto) and Cassidy Bishop (Calgary) McCarthy Tétrault LLP of Mondaq report that Alberta Court Of Appeal Upholds Dismissal Of Certification Application In Proposed Data Breach Class Action in the case-captioned Setoguchi v Uber. A recent decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal in a data breach class action may have positive repercussions for companies across Canada facing the threat of class actions following a data breach. In a unanimous decision in Setoguchi v Uber, the Court upheld the dismissal of the certification application by the Honourable Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke (the "Certification Judge"). In doing so, the Court affirmed that the test under s. 5(1)(a) (valid cause of action) is not a perfunctory exercise, and carefully scrutinized the Appellant's pleadings to determine whether her novel theory of harm should be recognized in law. Further, the Court affirmed it was open to the Certification Judge to determine that, in the absence of any opportunity for compensable class-wide harm, a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure. In the reasoning and result, this decision reflects the recent emphasis, in Canadian Courts, on the "gatekeeper" role of certification judges in ensuring that the certification hearing is a meaningful screening device. In late 2016, Uber was attacked by outside actors who accessed the names, telephone numbers and email addresses of a number of users globally (including several hundred thousand customers in Canada). Uber made a payment in exchange for assurances that the accessed data would be destroyed. In the 4 years between the breach and the certification application, and the 2 years between the certification application and the appeal, neither the Plaintiff nor any member of the proposed Class had come forward with proof of economic loss or psychological harm arising out of the data incident. In 2021, the Certification Judge denied certification. After concluding that "not only is there no evidence of harm or loss, there is evidence that there is no harm or loss", the Certification Judge found that in such circumstances, it would not be "preferable" to litigate the claims of all Class Members together, emphasizing the new culture of proportionality, and the systemic value of weeding out unmeritorious and de minimis claims. You can read our analysis of the lower court decision, here. By the time the matter reached appeal, the Plaintiff had narrowed her case to two class-wide allegations: (1) breach of contract, for which class-wide nominal damages were available; and (2) negligence for failing to protect personal information. In the absence of any evidence of economic harm or loss, the Plaintiff argued that because personal information has inherent value the theft of any personal information is itself a class-wide compensable harm, for which "baseline damages" could be awarded. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on two bases. First, the Court found the Appellant's pleading failed to disclose a cause of action in negligence. Second, with only the breach of contract claim to be pursued at a common issues trial, the Court found no appealable error in the Certification Judge's conclusion that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure in the circumstances. No claim in negligence Although the Court of Appeal was not prepared to import the requirement for "some basis in fact" or evidence of harm into the test under s. 5(1)(a), it noted that the Appellant's pleading did not automatically survive the s. 5(1)(a) analysis. While the cause of action in breach of contract was fully pleaded, the Court concluded the Appellant's cause of action in negligence was not. Noting that damages are an essential element of a claim in negligence, the Court found that the Appellant failed to plead any specific injury that is compensable at law. First, the Court considered the wording of the Statement of Claim, which stated that members of the class had "suffered significant loss and damages including harm and injury to their interests". This loss was stated to include "the unauthorized release, disclosure and use of their personal information." The Court of Appeal found this was not sufficient: A fundamental purpose of pleadings is to outline the case a defendant must meet. When a cause of action includes damage as one of its requirements, a plaintiff is required to plead facts sufficient to amount at law to damage. Pleadings alleging negligence, for instance, "must be supported by facts capable of sustaining a determination that a duty was owed, that an act or omission occurred breaching that duty, and that damages resulted" . . . This means that a negligence claim can be struck where the plaintiff fails to plead an injury that is recognized as being compensable at law . . . It is no more sufficient for a plaintiff to plead "damages" or "injury" than it is to plead the existence of a "duty of care"; both are bare legal conclusions that require sufficient facts to sustain them. In this regard, the Amended Statement of Claim is deficient; it fails to particularize the harm or damages suffered as a result of the hack, how such loss or damage was caused by Uber, and the remedies sought for each cause of action. This is essential information for the determination of whether particular causes of action can survive scrutiny under s 5(1)(a). [citations omitted] Next, the Court considered the Appellant's argument that theft of personal information was compensable harm per se and could be assumed on a class-wide basis—even if the personal information is not private information. As this theory of harm (and liability) was novel, the Appellant argued that her theory of harm ought to be considered at a common issues trial. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Relying on recent precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada and other appellate courts, the Court emphasized that novel claims should not be permitted to proceed just because they are novel. Rather, the Court stated: [46] Aside from creating or perpetuating legal uncertainty, failing to determine a question of law at the pleadings stage, when appropriate to do so, is antithetical to the call in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 for affordable, timely and just resolution of disputes. In the boundless landscape of scarce judicial resources, there is nothing to be gained by certifying suspect novel claims, the validity of which will only be determined at a merits trial that may never occur. As noted by Stratas JA in Coote v Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, 2013 FCA 143 at para 13: " [d]evoting resources to one case for no good reason deprives the others for no good reason" . . . The Court found that the loss of personal information in this case, standing alone, could not amount to compensable harm at law. The Court also considered the Appellant's argument that harm arose because information in the hands of criminals may make class members more susceptible to fraud such as phishing scams. After noting the creation of risk or prospect of future harm is generally not actionable, the Court concluded that even if class members are marginally "worse off" for having their personal information exposed, "damage in tort law must be 'real' as opposed to merely 'negligible' or 'trivial' in order to be actionable." Lastly, the Court noted that while the Appellant did plead some pecuniary losses that are "potentially compensable at law in negligence", such as, for example, out-of-pocket expenses for credit monitoring, the Appellant did not pursue this harm on a class-wide basis. Thus, the negligence claim was not capable of being certified on the basis of this type of harm. As a result, the Court found the Appellant's claim in negligence did not survive s. 5(1)(a) as she failed to plead a legally compensable harm on a class-wide basis, which is a required element for a cause of action in negligence. A class proceeding not the preferable procedure That left only the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, seeking nominal damages, for the proposed common issues trial. The Court agreed with the Certification Judge that in the circumstances of this case, a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure to resolve that claim: Certification of claims for nominal damages in breach of contract are usually made in the context of other causes of action also being certified. When the entirety of the class action is for nominal damages, the court can properly ask what purpose the action serves in the context of the objectives of class proceedings: Flesch at para 89. The Court of Appeal found it was open to the Certification Judge to conclude on the facts of this case that access to justice concerns did not prevail, as the damages sought were nominal only, and the considerable judicial resources required for a class proceeding were not justified due to the nature of the claim and its impact on class members. Further, the Court agreed that the extensive regulatory penalties already imposed on Uber, along with negative press coverage, were sufficient to achieve the goal of behaviour modification. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Certification Judge did not engage in an assessment of "the merits of the action", but rather took "a critical look at the entirety of the action and what it hopes to achieve". With deference to the Certification Judge's discretionary conclusion on preferable procedure, the Court dismissed the appeal. [GN] UNILEVER UNITED: Court Stays Anderson Proceeding for 90 Days ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-03117-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order staying proceeding for 90-days. -- The Court further ordered that the parties will provide a letter to the Court within 21 days, updating the Court on the status of scheduling the mediation; and -- The parties will report to the Court within seven days following the mediation whether it was successful, whether an additional session is scheduled, or, if unsuccessful, propose a revised schedule for completion of discovery and class certification. The Parties jointly request the Court stay the present schedule for 90-days to give the parties additional room to attempt to resolve the matter. Pursuant to the current Scheduling Order, the parties have until April 23, 2023, to complete fact discovery, May 27, 2023, to complete Plaintiffs expert discovery and move for class certification, as well as additional deadlines following thereon. Unilever manufactures personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mm7wch at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: www.reesellp.com UNITED COLLECTION: Adler Sues Over Misleading Collection of Debt ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Adler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No. 704369/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a result of the Defendants deceptive and misleading collection of debt. On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff allegedly incurred an obligation(s) to non-party Citibank, N.A. The obligation(s) arose out of transactions incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, specifically a personal credit card. The alleged Citi obligation(s) is a "debt." Citi is a "creditor." Citi contracted with the Defendant UCB to collect the alleged debt. On January 24, 2023, Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter ("Letter") in an attempt to collect the subject debt. The Letter sets forth that as of January 20, 2023, Plaintiff owed $20040.57. The Letter also sets forth that the "total amount of the debt now" is $20040.57. The Letter also states a "Minimum Payment Due" of $2602.93. However, the Letter does not clearly explain which amount is actually due, when it is due, and/or what impact a minimum payment would have on the collection. Accordingly, the Letter is nonsensical. Additionally, the Letter is misleading and deceptive. Specifically, the Letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation of the current status of the debt, at least one of which is inaccurate. The Letter leaves the Plaintiff with only one option which is to call the Defendant to get even the most basic information about this debt. The Plaintiff was fearful to call and be pressured to take an action he may not have wanted to take. The conflicting nature of the Letter left the Plaintiff concerned that the Letter was fraudulent and/or a scam. Defendant's omissions and 38. deceptions cast a negative shadow over its debt collection practice in general. As a result of the Defendant's multiple FDCPA violations, Plaintiff was unable to evaluate his options of how to handle this debt, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of Queens. Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert T. Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com UNITED PARCEL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephen Thistlewaite et al v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01753-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order declining to bifurcate class certification and merits discovery and setting the following dates: Last Day to Add Parties & Amend Pleadings (Doe defendants are dismissed as of cut-off to add parties) Mar. 24, 2023 Motion for Class Certification by: Sep. 1, 2023 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification by: Sep. 29, 2023 Reply to Motion for Class Certification by: Oct. 13, 2023 Hearing on Motion for Class Certification (1:30 p.m.): Nov. 17, 2023 Last Day to File Motion: Feb. 29, 2024 United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KXjNy6 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED POOL: Austin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Premium ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Austin, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. UNITED POOL MAINTENANCE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00883-ELR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") to address the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff an FLSA overtime premium for all work in excess of forty hours a week. The Defendant maintained and followed a policy and practice of paying its hourly employees an overtime premium if and only if such employee worked more than 88 hours in a semi-monthly pay period. The FLSA requires that the Defendant compensate its employees at a rate of one and one–half times their regular rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a seven-day work week. The Defendant failed to pay Austin at one and half times of his regular rate for time worked in excess of forty hours in a work week. The Defendant willfully failed to pay Austin at one and half times of his regular rate for time worked in excess of forty hours in a week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a pool technician at the Roswell, Georgia location from July 19, 2022 through November 18, 2022. United operates a pool maintenance and repair business in Roswell, Georgia and the surrounding area and at other locations throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq. Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK& BENJAMIN, LLC 101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2650 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 979-3150 Fax: (404) 979-3170 Email: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com UNITED STATES: Court Junks Bid to Review Mag. Judge Early Order --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WILLIAMS, and all those similarly situated, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, CDCR Secretary, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-02277-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for review of Magistrate Judge Early's order denying motion for appointment of counsel and order on motion to certify class action. In this case, the Plaintiff David Williams, proceeding pro se, asserts civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against several officers or employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), alleging that COVID-19 spread excessively in CDCR facilities because of Defendants' policies regarding health, safety, and hygiene. The Plaintiff appears to seek to represent a class of numerous prisoners in bringing these claims. On January 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for class certification. On January 11, 2023, Magistrate Judge John D. Early denied those motions. As to appointment of counsel, Magistrate Judge Early found, "after an evaluation of both 'the likelihood of success on the merits' and Plaintiff's ability 'to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.' A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ycIuiv at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Deadline on Class Cert Bid Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA A. NEVILLE, et al., v. CHARLOTTE A. BURROWS, Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Case No. 1:22-cv-03246-RC (D.D.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying its deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Counsel for the Parties conferred pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m) and the Plaintiffs graciously consent to the requested relief. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on February 13, 2023. Under the local rules, Defendant would have to respond to the motion by February 27, 2023. Subsequent to Plaintiff's Motion, Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court would conserve judicial resources by deferring any briefing and ruling on class certification until after it has resolved the preliminary issue of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists here. Moreover, both the Defendant and Plaintiffs will conserve resources by waiting to brief the issue of class certification until after the Court has ruled on the motion to dismiss that, if granted, will obviate the need to complete the briefing altogether. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace discrimination. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZyPO3M at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew M. Graves, Esq. Brian P. Hudak, Esq. Stephen DeGenaro, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 601 D St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-7229 E-mail: Stephen.DeGenaro@usdoj.gov VALENTINO USA: Benitez Bid for Class Status Denied w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benitez, et al., v. Valentino, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-11463-MKV-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification, which all parties agree need not be resolved before the contemplated summary judgment motions have been resolved. -- The denial is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' right to move anew for class certification following summary judgment. -- The parties submit this joint letter to respond to the Court's February 14, 2023 endorsed order pertaining to the parties' proposed briefing schedule for their respective motions for summary judgment. At a minimum, Defendant's anticipated motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff Choi, Brereton, Crawford and Benitez's Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims, and counterclaims against Plaintiff Learmont, would narrow the scope of the class certification motion or render it moot in the event that none of Plaintiffs' wage and hour claims survive. Indeed, the Second Circuit has held that holding class certification in abeyance is appropriate where resolution of the dispositive issue will "necessarily inform and perhaps moot" class certification issues and where the party opposing abeyance would not be prejudiced. Valentino operates men's and boy's clothing stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SO1bCJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 E 59th St Suite 3200, New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 The Defendant is represented by: Fred H. Perkins, Esq. MORRISON COHEN LLP 909 3rd Ave, New York, NY 10022, Telephone: (212) 735-8600 VALLEY BROOK, OK: Bid to Extend Case Deadlines OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMIESHA HILL, et al. v. TOWN OF VALLEY BROOK, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00097-SLP (W.D. Okla), the Hon. Judge Scott L. Palk entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend case deadlines. -- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification on or before May 31, 2023. Any response(s) to that motion shall be filed on or before July 17, 2023. -- The filing of any reply in support of the class certification motion shall be governed by the Local Civil Rules of this Court. Further deadlines may be established in a Phase II Specialized Scheduling Order after the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek a 90-day extension to all deadlines set forth in the First Amended Phase I Scheduling Order., Valley Brook is a town in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, United States, and is part of the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area. The population was 765 at the 2010 census. A copy of the Court's orderdated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SEi96q at no extra charge.[CC] VEE PAK INC: Court Grants Class Cert. in Discrimination Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie Jaquins of Cook County Record reports that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted Feb. 23 by U.S. District Judge John Tharp in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago in the case-captioned Joe Eagle, Michael Keys, James Zollicoffer, and Evan Franklin on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals vs. Vee Pak, Inc., Vee Pak, LLC d/b/a Voyant Beauty, and Staffing Network Holdings, LLC, Case Number 12-CV-09672. A class action lawsuit alleging a suburban beauty supply distributor and staffing agencies enforced discriminatory practices against Black workers is moving forward. Named plaintiffs Joe Eagle, Michael Keys, James Zollicoffer and Evan Franklin filed suit alleging that Vee Pak, located in Countryside and Hodgkins, had a policy that favored hiring Latino workers over Black applicants, and instructed several staffing agencies to implement that policy when filling temporary positions in its warehouse. The manufacturing facilities had workers fill and cap bottles and tubes for personal-care and drug companies. The legal action dates back to 2012, when Eagle, Keys, Zollicoffer and Franklin, who are Black, first brought the putative class action individually and on behalf of other Black temp workers allegedly similarly denied work, against Vee Pak and three staffing agencies, Alternative Staffing, Personnel Staffing Group and Staffing Network, that allegedly implemented Vee Pak's alleged discriminatory policy. Alternative Staffing and Personnel Staffing Group, which does business as Most Valuable Personnel, or MVP, have settled the claims against them; Vee Pak and the third staffing agency, Staffing Network, remain in the case. Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of Black workers who sought, but were denied, work assignments at the three staffing agencies from which they could have been referred to Vee Pak between 2011 and 2015. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted Feb. 23 by U.S. District Judge John Tharp in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Eagle and Keys were appointed as staffing network subclass representatives, Zollicoffer as MVP subclass representative, and Franklin as ASI subclass representative. The court appointed attorneys Joseph M. Sellers and Harini Srinivasan, of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, of Washington, D.C.; Christopher J. Williams, of National Legal Advocacy Network, of Chicago; and Christopher J. Wilmes and Caryn C. Lederer, of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, of Chicago, as class counsel. According to court documents, Eagle first sought work at Staffing Network in March 2011. During his first visit, he allegedly completed an application and was told to return the next morning. This began an alleged pattern of Eagle arriving early in the morning, signing in, and waiting for hours, allegedly to no avail. While waiting, Eagle allegedly often observed that Staffing Network assigned Latino workers, who arrived at Staffing Network in vans the staffing agency provided, to Vee Pak. Eagle did not, however, allegedly observe any Black workers on a van destined for Vee Pak. Keys allegedly sought work from Staffing Network around the same time as Eagle, in September 2011. Even though Staffing Network told Keys it only accepted new applications two days a week, Keys allegedly observed new Latino workers obtain work on other days of the week. Keys said he was consistently among the first workers to sign in, but the agency did not give him an assignment for two weeks. Keys also testified that Staffing Network assigned him to a few of its clients but allegedly never to Vee Pak. Zollicoffer testified that he experienced similar treatment to Eagle and Keys at Staffing Network, although outside of the class period in 2009 and 2010. After Zollicoffer moved to Chicago in summer 2009, he allegedly sought work at MVP's Cicero office. The first time he signed in and was told to come back the next day. Although Zollicoffer allegedly returned early the next morning, Staffing Network did not assign him work. Zollicoffer asserted that on multiple occasions in 2009, he would travel to MVP's Cicero office during the early morning hours on foot, seeking assignment for temporary work. He further claimed that he observed MVP assign Latino workers to clients on days when he was waiting for work for multiple hours. Franklin testified to similar alleged treatment from ASI, seeking placements at ASI’s Cicero office in September 2014. Franklin continued to seek assignments from ASI on numerous occasions, indicating she was available and had no work limitations. Franklin received sporadic work placements over a period of several months, but never at Vee Pak. She also allegedly observed ASI assigned Latino workers, but not Black workers, to jobs when she visited the ASI offices in person. Employees at the three staffing agencies purportedly testified to the defendants' discriminatory practices, which included first-hand accounts of alleged discriminatory conduct at all levels of management, including that Vee Pak allegedly told staffing agency managers not to refer Black workers, that staffing agency employees allegedly perpetuated these policies, that staffing agencies allegedly used derogatory code words to refer to Black workers, and that the few Black workers who did manage to bypass staffing agencies allegedly were turned away at Vee Pak's door. The court found testimony about specific mechanisms of discrimination, from the upper echelons of staffing-agency management to the staffing-agency dispatchers to the employees facing the effects of discrimination, spoke to the existence of an alleged discriminatory policy among the defendants. Vee Pak and Staffing Network moved to bar the testimony of Marc Bendick Jr., a labor economist on whose proffered opinions the plaintiffs rely in their class-certification motion. Bendick performed a statistical analysis of the relevant labor market that purports to find a shortfall of staffing-agency placements of Black workers at Vee Pak. He compared his expected representation of Black applicants eligible to work at Vee Pak to Vee Pak's actual hiring practices. The defendants' motion to bar Bendick's testimony was denied. The court said Bendick considered Black workers' potential interest in the job, drew his relevant labor market based upon real data, and applied a regression methodology that courts have repeatedly endorsed. Although his results are not bulletproof, the court found any deficiencies could be addressed on cross examination. Vee Pak has been represented in the case by attorneys Joseph K. Mulherin, of McDermott Will and Emery, of Chicago; and Donald S. Rothschild and Brian M. Dougherty, of Goldstine, Skrodzki, Russian, Nemec and Hoff, of Burr Ridge. Staffing Network is represented by attorneys Carter A. Korey, Elliot S. Richardson and Michele Denise Dougherty, of the firm of Korey Richardson, of Chicago. [GN] VERTEX ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ Holzer & Holzer of GlobeNewsWire reports that the deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is May 2, 2023 in a class action lawsuit has been filed against Vertex Energy, Inc. ("Vertex Energy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VTNR). Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Vertex Energy, Inc. ("Vertex Energy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VTNR). The lawsuit alleges Vertex Energy made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts, including: prior to the acquisition of its Mobile, Alabama refinery, defendants entered into, or were a party to, a series of transactions that significantly capped the new plant's profitability and would result in substantial losses. Moreover, Defendants overstated the purported profit margins that could be achieved at the refinery. If you bought shares of Vertex Energy between April 1, 2022 and August 8, 2022 and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq. at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at https://holzerlaw.com/case/vertex-energy/ to learn more. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website,  www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com[GN] VERTEX ENERGY: Faces Duffy Suit Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- DARYL P. DUFFY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERTEX ENERGY, INC.; BENJAMIN P. COWART; and CHRIS CARLSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00076 (S.D. Ala., March 3, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Vertex securities between April 1, 2022 and August 8, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Vertex and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' filings and submissions with the SEC, and their representations about the Mobile refinery, were each false and misleading when made or omitted information necessary to make the statements not misleading. The Defendants acted with scienter in that defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the public documents and statements they issued and disseminated to the investing public in the name of the Company, or in their own name, during the Class Period were materially false and misleading. The price of Vertex common stock collapsed by $6.18 per share, or 44%, on August 9, 2022, on abnormally high trading volume of more than 27 million shares traded. The share price continued to fall in subsequent days as the market digested the news, reaching a low of just $7.05 per share on August 11, 2022, roughly 50% below the closing price on August 8, 2022, and over 60% lower than the Class Period high of $18.10 per share in June 2022. As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the declines in the market value of Vertex securities, plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Vertex Energy Inc. is a middle market consolidator, refiner and re-refiner of distressed petroleum streams, such as used oil, transmix, fuel oils and off-specification commercial chemical products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sidney W. Jackson III, Esq. JACKSON & FOSTER, LLC 75 St. Michael Street Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-6699 - and - Roger H. Bedford, Jr., Esq. ROGER BEDFORD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC P.O. Box 1149 Russellville, AL 35653 Telephone: (256) 332-6966 - and - Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 W. T. BYLER CO: Cardoso Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- Felix Cardoso, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. W. T. Byler Co.-GP, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00748 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought against Defendant to recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant required the Plaintiff to be present for a safety meeting before each workday but did not pay them for their attendance at such meeting. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in many workweeks that they worked for the Defendant, and their attendance at the safety meeting should generally have been paid as overtime hours. During the weeks that the Plaintiff did not work 40 hours, they should have been paid for time spent at the mandatory meetings at their regular hourly rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a construction worker operating machinery from September of 2017 until September of 2022. The Defendants operates commercial construction sites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Phone 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney Bid for Class Cert. Denied as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL DRANEY et al., v. WESTCO CHEMICALS, INC. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01405-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order granting motion for summary judgment, denying as moot motion to certify class, and dismissing first amended complaint. -- The Court dismisses the first amended complaint (1) with prejudice as to Draney's and Ibarra's individual claims and (2) without prejudice as to the class claims. -- The Plaintiffs' Motion to certify class is denied as moot. -- All dates and deadlines in this matter are vacated and taken off calendar. The Court will issue Judgment. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which is fully briefed and under submission. In the Motion to Certify Class, Draney and Ibarra propose themselves as Lead Plaintiffs. However, Draney's and Ibarra's claims are time-barred, such that dismissal of their individual claims with prejudice is appropriate. "When a defendant has obtained summary judgment against putative class plaintiffs, a motion for class certification becomes moot." The Plaintiffs Daniel Draney and Lorenzo Ibarra bring suit pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against their employer, Westco and its principals, Ezekiel Zwillinger and Steven Zwillinger, for mismanaging an employee defined-contribution pension plan. As employees of Westco, Draney and Ibarra participated in Westco's 401(k) Plan, a defined-contribution, individual account pension plan subject to ERISA. On February 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint, asserting individual and class claims arising from two Westco retirement plans: the 401(k) Plan and a separate Defined Benefit Pension Plan. The Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants for (1) breach of duty of prudence, 29 U.S.C. 3 section 1104(a) (1)(B); (2) breach of duty of loyalty, 29 U.S.C. section 1104(a)(1) (A); and (3) failing to administer the 401(k) Plan in accordance with its terms, 29 U.S.C. section 1103. In ruling on Defendants' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss, the Court found that the FAC lacked allegations showing that the beneficiaries of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan suffered any injury-in-fact. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Claims One and Two to the extent they were premised on mismanagement of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Westco is a supply and distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mrNmhf at no extra charge.[CC] WESTMINSTER MANAGEMENT: Tenants' Class Action Revives in Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Maryland appeals court revives tenants' class action in a case-captioned Tenae Smith et al. v. Westminster Management, LLC, et al., No. 2508, September Term 2019. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed a court order that granted judgment to a property management firm on a class action brought by tenants alleging violations of debt collection and consumer protection laws. The company's decision to charge tenants a 5% fee for late rental payments violates state law, and its decision to overcharge for certain fees related to ejectment actions begun in anticipation of default on rent may be challenged by the class. [GN] WHOLE FOODS: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Extended ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MOLOCK, et al., v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-02483-APM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent motion to extend by one week the class- certification briefing schedule, and the Defendant having consented to the relief requested. The parties shall submit their class-certification briefs on the following schedule: -- Plaintiffs' Motion: March 3, 2023 -- Defendant's Response: May 1, 2023 -- Plaintiffs' Reply: May 22, 2023 Whole Foods owns and operates a chain of natural and organic foods supermarket. Whole Foods, a subsidiary of Amazon, is an American multinational supermarket chain headquartered in Austin, Texas, which sells products free from hydrogenated fats and artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EOPYvN at no extra charge.[CC] WONDER MONDAY: Donet Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WONDER MONDAY, LLC, Case No. 151918/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought challenging the Defendant's discriminatory business practices with regards to the Defendant's Website which contained access barriers that prevented the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally blind individuals from purchasing products thereon. The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates wondermonday.com ("Website" or "Defendant's Website"). Through the Website, Defendant sells products, such as cheesecake snacks. The Defendant and its and its Website--which is not equally accessible to blind and/or visually impaired consumers--violate the following: the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff brings this action in both an individual capacity and on the behalf of other similarly situated blind and/or visually impaired people who sought to purchase the goods and products that Defendant sells. The Plaintiff and the Class seek, inter alia, a preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expense, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually impaired, handicapped person. The Defendant owns and/or operates the Website: wondermonday.com which is a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212/595-6200 Fax: 212/595-9700 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com WORKHORSE GROUP: Weiss Class Suit to Start March 19, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------- Workhorse Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Weiss securities class suit will begin on March 19, 2024. The Company, Duane Hughes, Steve Schrader, Robert Willison and Gregory Ackerson are defendants in a putative class action (the "Securities Class Action") brought in the Central District of California (Case No.2:21-cv-02072) on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from March 10, 2020 through May 10, 2021. The amended complaint in this action, filed by lead plaintiff, Timothy M. Weis, on July 16, 2021, alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws by intentionally or recklessly making material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the Company's participation in the bidding process to manufacture the new fleet of USPS next generation delivery vehicles, the prospect of the USPS awarding the contract to Workhorse given alleged deficiencies in Workhorse's proposal, the Company's manufacturing abilities generally and the Company's nonbinding "backlog" in its vehicles. Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class and monetary damages in an indeterminate amount. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss in substantial part, and the Securities Class Action is currently scheduled to begin trial on March 19, 2024. Workhorse Group Inc. is a technology company focused on providing sustainable and cost-effective solutions to the commercial transportation sector. As an American manufacturer, the company create all-electric delivery trucks and drone systems, including the technology that optimizes the way these mechanisms operate. The company is based in Loveland, Ohio. ZIFF DAVIS: Dismissal of Garcia Securities Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Ziff Davis Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the lead plaintiff in the Garcia securities class suit has filed a notice of appeal on the class suit's dismissal. On July 8, 2020, Jeffrey Garcia filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the Central District of California (20-cv-06096), alleging violations of federal securities laws. The court appointed a lead plaintiff. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss and the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 8, 2022, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. Ziff Davis, Inc. is a digital media and internet company based in New York. ********* 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 ***