/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230314.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 14, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 53 Headlines 4SSL HOLDINGS: Mupondi Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation A.G. CONSULTING: Class Suit Seeks Conditional Certification AC2T INC: Rosenfeld Sues Over False and Misleading Representations ADVOCATE AURORA: Stewart Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. Wis. ALAMEDA HEALTH: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Suit ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Hilario Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Averts Class Action Over Remote Work Expenses AMCOM: Gamez Sues Over Failure to Pay All Earned Wages AMERICAN AIRLINES: Winkler Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. AMERICAN CAR CENTER: Wallace Sues Over WARN Act Violation AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due December 1 AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 10 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Extension of Case Deadlines in Qureshi Sought APPLE INC: Herrera Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ARAMARK CAMPUS: Williams Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Romano Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASSISTCARE HOME: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over 2021 Data Breach ATLANTIC UNION BANK: Blackcat Events Files Suit in E.D. Virginia AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 29 BHS MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class BIMBO BAKERIES: Ellison-Robbins Sues Over Mislabeled Cake Product BISSELL HOMECARE: Appeals Remand of Rowland Suit to State Court BLOCK INC: Hart Securities Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. BOSTON UNIVERSITY : Suit Seeks to Certify Fulltime Student Class CANADA: Class Action Over Illegal Prison Strip Searches Certified CARRIE SLATTON-HODGES: Briggs Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Katz Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Browne Suit Removed to C.D. California CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Dawes Says CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: $8.1M Class Settlement to be Heard on June 5 CI MUTUAL FUNDS: Investors Won 17-Year Long Breach Class Suit CITIBANK NA: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Suit Over Labor Violations CLARIVATE PLC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in PA CLOUDERA INC: May 15 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set COGNYTE SOFTWARE: OPFRS Sues Over Misleading Statements COLONIAL LIFE: Takes Wage-and-Hour Allegations to Arbitration COMMUNITY HEALTH: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought CONDUENT INC: $32MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 24 CORRECTCARE INTEGRATED: Hiley, et al., Seek to Consolidate Cases DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Johnson Files Suit in D. Columbia DUN & BRADSTREET: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Batis Case DUTCH BROS INC: Peacock Sues Over Exchange Act Violation DUTCH BROS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 1 EARGO INC: Court Grants Motion Tto Dismiss Securities Class Action ENOVIX CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit in California ENOVIX CORP: Mediation in Sopheak Class Suit Ongoing EUCLID CHEMICAL: Schmidt Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. EXXONMOBIL CORP: Faces Suit Over Racially Hostile Workplace FCA US: $835K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Moran Class Suit FIAT CHRYSLER: Agreed to Settle 2016 Transmission Class Suit FLUIDIGM CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2nd Amended Kong Suit FOOT LOCKER: Asis Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. FOUR SIGMA: Gutierrez Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. FRINGE BENEFIT: 5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in ERISA Suit FULTON FINANCIAL: Kress Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice FUSION IND: Seeks More Time to Respond to Garza Class Cert Bid GEICO GENERAL: Status Report Submission Extended to March 21 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bid to Extend Pre-Trial Dates Partly OK'd GRAY LAYTON: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Griffing Suit Vacated GREG REECE'S: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HARBOR FREIGHT: Court Places Comes Suit in Inactive Status HEALTH FIRST: Powers Sues Over Unlawful Monopolization HELEN OF TROY: Appeals Remand Order in Rowland Suit to 3rd Cir. HILTON GRAND: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HOME DEPOT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 18 HOMELAND SECURITY: Oldaker Allowed to File Consolidated Reply Brief HONDA MOTOR: Clay Barnett Appointed as Lead Counsel in Engine Suit HUB CYBER: Faces Securities Class Action in Tel Aviv Court HUBBARD RADIO: Duplantis Withdraws Class Suit Over Data Breach HV GLOBAL: Ramirez Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid HYATT CORP: Court Enters Stipulated Final Judgment in Crump Suit INTELSAT SA: Class Action Motion Sets for Hearing on April 28 INTERFACE INC: Continues to Defend Swanson Securities Class Suit IQVIA INC: Lyngaas Must File Class Cert Reply Brief by March 15 JAHO HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over 10% Wellness Fee JERR SHOES INC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York KDM ANCHOR: Joint Stipulation for Conditional Collective Filed KNOX COUNTY, TN: Class Certification in Day v. Sheriff Office Nixed L'OREAL USA: Burton Mislabeling Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. L'OREAL USA: Gethers Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. L.L. BEAN: Class-Action Lawsuit Targets Mislabeled Women's Boots LAKEVIEW LOAN: Oglesby Privacy Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. LE SPORTSAC: Seeks More Time to Comply with Jan. 24 Order LENOVO INC: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 23 LEPRINO FOODS: Motions in Limine Partly OK'd in Vasquez Suit LITIGATION PRACTICE: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by March 24 MANITOBA: Seeks Dismissal of Proposed Suit Over Vaccine Policy MARK KILMER: Faces Class Suit Over Domestic Violence Allegations MATCH GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5 MATTHEW WADE BEASLEY: Receiver Allowed to Employ LKLSG in SEC Suit MCDONALDS CORP: Burke Backs Shoppies Union Over Class Action MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Allen v. Blackbaud MERCEDES BENZ: Stipulation to Vacate Class Cert. Deadlines Amended MIAMI, FL: West Grove Residents File Suit Over Trash Incinerator MORNING FINANCIAL: Leave to Conduct Class Cert Discovery Sought NATERA INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending NATERA INC: Bid to Junk Patient Billing Class Suit Pending NATIONAL VISION: Faces Exchange Act Class Suit in Georgia NESTLE SA: Consumers May Claim $40 in Coffee-Mate Suit Settlement OKLAHOMA: Faces Class Suit Over Inmates' Mental Health Treatment ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Somogyi Class Suit ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: $15MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on May 19 PACTIV LLC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Wilson & Rodriguez Suits PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle Merger Deal Suit for $122.5M PAYPAL INC: Faces Suit Over Data Breach Affecting 35,000 Users PURE ENERGY: Metzler Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal RABTRA LLC: Order on General Pretrial Management Entered in Voleman SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appeals Remand of Zortea Suit SAN DIEGO, CA: Cordero Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. SCIPLAY CORP: Fife Putative Class Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Burns Class Suit SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Highfield Capital Securities Suit Dismissed SINGULARITY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Crivellaro Class Suit SMUGGLER LLC: Costa Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SOFI TECHNOLOGIES: Juarez Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval STEVENS BOOKSHOP: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TALKSPACE INC: Misleads Patients on Therapist Matches, Suit Says TALKSPACE INC: Weizman Files Suit in N.D. California TEMASEK HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Cryptocurrency Fraud TERRAN ORBITAL: Mullen Must File Info on Class Notice Publication THOMAS EXCAVATING: Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Kise Suit THREE WISHES FOODS: Luna Sues Over Deceptive Labeling and Marketing TORISHIKI USA: Dos Passos Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Faces Suit Over Labor Depreciation Deductions UNITED STATES: Cummins Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Mohr Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND: Burt Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling WALMART INC: Chaplin Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. WDI INTERNATIONAL: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York YPD SACRAMENTO: Ruiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Christensen Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir [*] Human Rights Class Suit in Isle of Man to be Heard on May 15 [*] Securities Class Action Settlements Hit Record High in 2022 ********* 4SSL HOLDINGS: Mupondi Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Last Mupondi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 4SSL HOLDINGS, LLC AND MURAD M. MADHANI, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00176 (E.D. Tex., March 6, 2023), is brought to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation costs, costs of court, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff consistently worked more than forty hours per workweek. The Plaintiff worked 12 hours per day, six days per week. In fact, for the first five months of his employment, the Plaintiff worked 12 hour shifts, seven days a week. The Defendants never paid the Plaintiff overtime premiums for any hours worked over forty per workweek. The Plaintiff and the putative class of other caregivers were all misclassified as independent contractors. Even though the Defendants classified their caregivers as independent contractors, the Defendants knew their caregivers were employees. The Defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff in accordance with the guarantees and protections of the FLSA. The Defendants have failed and refused to pay these employees at time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours within a workweek. The Defendants willfully committed violations of the FLSA by failing to pay overtime premiums to their non-exempt caregivers for hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a caregiver by the Defendants. The Defendants operate residential care homes providing personalized care to the elderly who require around-the-clock attention.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118 Longview, TX 75601 Phone: (512) 799-2048 Email: doug@wemakerlaw.com A.G. CONSULTING: Class Suit Seeks Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN KOVALEV and MINTIWAB HILL, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly-Situated, v. A.G. CONSULTING ENGINEERING, P.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-05954-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will ask the Court on March 22, 2023 to enter an order for Conditional Certification, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for issuance of notice to other similarly situated individuals and to appoint Edelson Lechtzin LLP and Capozzi Adler, P.C.as Class Counsel. A. G. Consulting provides Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire Protection, Communications, IT and Security Systems design. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JcxSpd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com elechtzin@edelson-law.com - and - James A. Wells, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (717) 585-7823 E-mail: jayw@capozziadler.com AC2T INC: Rosenfeld Sues Over False and Misleading Representations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kalman Rosenfeld and Lois Ryder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AC2T, INC., Case No. 506882/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., March 6, 2023), is brought on behalf of purchasers of the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator ("SME") and Spartan Mosquito Eradicator Pro Tech ("Pro Tech," and together with SME, the "Products") in the United States, which contains false and misleading representations. Spartan represents that the Products, which are tubes intended to be hung around a purchaser's yard, provide "do-it-yourself' mosquito prevention. Each product only has three "active" ingredients--the Eradicator contains sugar, yeast, and salt, and the Pro Tech contains sugar, yeast, and boric acid instead of salt. Consumers are instructed to add water to the tubes to mix with the "active" ingredients and then hang them around their yards. Unfortunately for consumers, however, each of these representations is false and misleading because the Products do not work as advertised. The Products are ineffective for mosquito prevention because they do not attract mosquitoes and are incapable of killing mosquitoes or decreasing mosquito populations. Defendant is well-aware that the Products are ineffective, yet sells them anyway in pursuit of profit and in clear disregard for public health and safety. First, there is no evidence that mosquitoes are attracted to the Products' ingredients such that they could be lured into the tubes to drink the supposedly deadly solution inside. Indeed, contrary to Defendant's early marketing claims that the sugar and yeast in the Products produce mosquito-attracting levels of carbon dioxide through fermentation, a wide range of mosquito experts who have evaluated the Products disagree. Second, peer-reviewed research and expert analysis has shown that mosquitoes will not even enter the Products' tubes to access the solution inside because the holes in the tubes, which are approximately 3/16 of an inch wide, are simply too small. According to a 2018 study, mosquitoes almost never enter holes smaller than 8-9 millimeters--roughly double the size of the holes in the Products. The Defendant has sold tens of millions of dollars' worth of the Products through their false promises of effectiveness to consumers in the United States. They have done so by capitalizing on health risks posed by mosquitoes to humans. The Plaintiffs are purchasers of the Products who assert claims on behalf of themselves and similarly situated purchasers of the Products for violations of the consumer protection laws of New York, breach of express warranty, and for fraud, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendant's the Products. AC2T, Inc., manufactures and sells the Products under the Spartan Mosquito brand name.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com ADVOCATE AURORA: Stewart Privacy Suit Removed to E.D. Wis. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ALISTAIR STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC. and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05964 was removed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Feb. 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00260-NJ to the proceeding. The suit is a medical privacy action against Advocate and Facebook, for violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act and other privacy rights by knowingly and repeatedly intercepting, accessing, and disclosing the personally identifiable, sensitive and confidential statutorily-protected patient health information of Advocate's patients, including Plaintiff, without their knowledge, authorization, or consent. Advocate Aurora Health, Inc. is a non-profit health care system with dual headquarters located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Downers Grove, Illinois.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey J. Bushofsky, Esq. Francis X Liesman, III, Esq. ROPES & GRAY 191 N Wacker Dr-Fl 32 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 845-1272 Facsimile: (312) 845-5530 E-mail: jeffrey.bushofsky@ropesgray.com - and - Edward McNicholas, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 508-4779 E-mail: edward.mcnicholas@ropesgray.com - and - Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Ave. New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 - and - Matthew Lawrence Kutcher, Esq. COOLEY LLP 110 N Wacker Dr-Ste 4200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 881-6500 E-mail: mkutcher@cooley.com ALAMEDA HEALTH: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The San Francisco employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Alameda Health System, alleging the company violated the California Labor Code. The lawsuit against Alameda Health System is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 23CV027524. According to the complaint filed, Alameda Health System allegedly failed to pay employees for all the time they were under the employer's control. This, allegedly, includes the time Plaintiff and other California Class Members had to submit to mandatory COVID-19 questionnaires and temperature checks prior to clocking in for the day. To the extent that the time worked off-the-clock did not qualify for overtime premium payment, Defendant allegedly failed to pay minimum and overtime wages for the time worked off-the-clock. The complaint further alleges Alameda Health System restricted employees from unconstrained walks in which employees could not leave work premises during their rest period. The applicable California Wage Order requires employers to provide employees with off-duty rest periods, which the California Supreme Court defined as time during which an employee is relieved from all work related duties and free from employer control. For more information about the class action lawsuit against Alameda Health System, call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced California employment attorney. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, Orange County, and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, and other types of illegal workplace conduct.[GN] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Hilario Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify the class in the lawsuit entitled Tisha Hilario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this case is about how Allstate calculates the square footage of houses for homeowners' insurance, specifically its alleged double counting of built-in garage space due to a faulty transition to new insurance software. The dispute arises from homeowners' insurance policies covering houses in California, including the home that Hilario owns in San Francisco. In the First Amendment Complaint ("FAC"), Hilario alleges she has held homeowners' insurance through Allstate since 2004. She alleges that in 2019, she received "a purposefully vague form letter" from Allstate that her policy information might be changing. She asserts that she discovered that this change ended up double counting the square footage of her garage, causing her to pay more in insurance premiums. She says that this "double counting" affected 43,265 people holding homeowners' insurance policies through Allstate. Hilario filed her initial complaint and Allstate moved to dismiss, which Judge William H. Orrick granted with leave to amend. Hilario filed her first amended complaint on Jan. 22, 2021, alleging negligence and breach of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Allstate filed an answer on Feb. 19, 2021, and pre-certification discovery ensued. Hilario filed her motion for class certification on July 1, 2022, and after briefing was completed, Judge Orrick held a hearing on Nov. 16, 2022. Hilario sought certification of the following class: "All Allstate California policyholders from 2019 to the present with at least one built-in garage who paid premiums for homeowners or renters' insurance to Allstate." On Nov. 22, 2022, the Court granted Hilario's motion for class certification. Judge Orrick narrowed the class definition to: "All Allstate California homeowners' insurance policyholders as of March 2019, who paid premiums and had at least one built-in garage, and whose garage square footage was counted twice in calculating insured square footage and premiums." The appellate case is captioned Tisha Hilario v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 23-15264, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 24, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Allstate Insurance Company Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 3, 2023; -- Transcript is due on April 26, 2023; -- Appellant Allstate Insurance Company opening brief is due on June 5, 2023; -- Appellee Tisha Hilario answering brief is due on July 5, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee TISHA HILARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David R. Shane, Esq. SHANE LAW 1000 Drakes Landing Road Greenbrae, CA 94904 Telephone: (415) 464-2020 Defendant-Appellant ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Mark L. Hanover, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 876-8000 - and - Sonia Martin, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 882-2476 AMAZON.COM INC: Averts Class Action Over Remote Work Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that Amazon.com Inc on March 7 defeated a proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of nearly 7,000 workers in California that claimed the company should have reimbursed employees who worked remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic for home office expenses. U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria in San Francisco said the named plaintiff, David Williams, failed to show that Amazon had a company-wide policy of not reimbursing employees for internet, cell phone and other costs, and the judge denied his motion to certify the workers as a class. The judge said that more than 600 of the 7,000 proposed class members were reimbursed $66.49 on average for home internet expenses, and some were reimbursed in full. Williams' motion for class certification was denied without prejudice, meaning he can file a renewed motion later on. Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Craig Ackermann, a lawyer for Williams, said he plans to file a new motion excluding the 619 workers who received reimbursements from the proposed class. "We are very pleased and happy to accept the court's challenge to try again for certification following a bit more discovery," he said. Williams sued Amazon in 2021 individually and added class-action claims last year. He has accused Amazon of violating a California law requiring employers to reimburse workers for reasonable work-related expenses. Chhabria in January denied Amazon's motion to dismiss the case. The company had argued that it did not owe reimbursements because the costs resulted from government stay-at-home orders and not any decision by Amazon. Williams' lawyers have filed similar lawsuits against several other companies including IBM Corp (IBM.N), Fox Broadcasting Co and Oracle Corp (ORCL.N). Some of those cases have settled, with businesses agreeing to give remote workers stipends of up to $83 per month to cover home office expenses. [GN] AMCOM: Gamez Sues Over Failure to Pay All Earned Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Victor Gamez and Mario Ruiz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as well as fellow Aggrieved Employees v. AMCOM, a California Corporation; SAREEN INCORPORATED, a California Corporation; MEL-O-DEE ICE CREAM, INC., a California Corporation; FARHAD KARAMATI, an individual; MEHRAN SAHABI, an individual; JAY SARIN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV04520 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 1, 2023), against the Defendants for failure to pay all earned wages. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants unlawfully failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse to pay compensation for all hours worked by Plaintiffs and the Class at their regular rate of pay. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs, as well as their fellow Class members and Aggrieved Employees, are entitled to a recovery of damages for all unpaid wages at the proper rates of pay as restitution from Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants unlawfully failed, refused and continue to fail and refuse to pay Plaintiffs, as well as their fellow Class members and Aggrieved Employees, one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a given day, 40 hours in a given seven day period, in addition to the first 8 hours of the seventh consecutive day of work; as well as double their regular rate of pay for work in excess of twelve hours per day, or in excess of eight hours on the seventh consecutive day of work, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants. The Defendants were and are doing business and maintain minimum contacts in the County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Denis, Esq. Ethan E. Rasi, Esq. DENIS & RASI, PC 38 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 Phone: (714) 242-4557 Fax: (213) 443-9601 Email: pdenis@denisrasilaw.com erasi@denisrasilaw.com - and - Robert W. Skripko, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR., PC 38 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 Phone: (949) 476-2000 Fax: (949) 476-2007 Email: rwskripko@skripkolaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Winkler Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled JEWLETT WINKLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2022CH12037, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, First District, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 27, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01208 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts two class action claims against American under the Chicago Paid Sick Leave Ordinance and Cook County Earned Sick Leave Ordinance. The Plaintiff claims that, following the amendable date of the collective bargaining agreement, American passenger service employees became covered by the Chicago Ordinance, but passenger service employees did not receive sick leave in the amount and manner required under the Chicago Ordinance. Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that, following the CBA amendable date, American became subject to the requirements of the Cook County Ordinance but passenger service employees did not receive sick leave in the amount and manner required under the Cook County Ordinance. American Airlines, Inc. is a major U.S.-based airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul E. Bateman, Esq. Lavanga V. Wijekoon, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 372-5520 Facsimile: (312) 372-7880 E-mail: PBateman@littler.com LWijekoon@littler.com - and - Mark W. Robertson, Esq. Charles J. Mahoney, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 E-mail: mrobertson@omm.com cmahoney@omm.com AMERICAN CAR CENTER: Wallace Sues Over WARN Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Wallace and Jarmen Mckinney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN CAR CENTER, LLC and RAC DEALERSHIP, LLC d/b/a AMERICAN CAR CENTER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss., March 1, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) statute which requires employers to give 60 days' notice prior to a plant closing or 60 days' pay. The Defendants notified the Plaintiffs and all employees late on the afternoon of February 24, 2023, that all locations of American Car Center would be closed immediately and that the company was ceasing operations. Approximately 30 minutes thereafter, a WARN Act notice was emailed to affected employees. The Defendants failed to give the Plaintiffs and all other members of the class 60 days' notice prior to the closing as required by the WARN Act. The Defendants failed to provide 60 days' notice to the state Rapid Response Teams, the Mayors of the affected towns and the Presidents of the Boards of Supervisors of the affected counties as required by the WARN Act. The failure to notify each entity identified in paragraph 8 is subject to a civil penalty of $500 per day for each of the three violations. The WARN statute provides that an employer's failure to give 60 days' notice makes it liable for 60 days of pay. The Defendants also did not pay Plaintiffs and other employees their accrued vacation, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former employees of American Car Center. The Defendant, RAC Dealership, LLC d/b/a American Car Center, is an employer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip C. Hearn, Esq. HEARN LAW FIRM, P.A. 102 N. Guyton Blvd. Blue Mountain, MS 38610 Phone: 601-720-3541 Fax: 662-524-3530 Email: philiphenrn@yahoo.com - and - Mike Farrell, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MIKE FARRELL, PLLC 210 E. Capitol Street Regions Plaza, Suite 1088 Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: 601-948-8030 AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due December 1 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERI VARNEY, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-04004-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Any motion to amend the pleadings March 31, 2023 shall be filed on or before: 2. Any motion to join additional March 31, 2023. parties shall be filed on or before: 3. All pretrial discovery authorized November 1, 2023 by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed on or before: 4. Each plaintiff shall designate any September 1, 2023 expert witnesses it intends to call at trial on or before: 5. Each defendant shall designate October 13, 2023 any expert witnesses it intends to call at trial on or before: 6. Each party shall designate any January 30, 2024 rebuttal expert witness it intends to call at trial on or before: 7. Plaintiff's motion for class December 1, 2023 certification shall be filed on or before: 8. The Defendant's opposition shall January 15, 2024 be filed on or before: 9. The Plaintiff's reply shall be January 30, 2024 filed on or before: American Family operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KYBhKr at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONA WILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC. a California company, Case No. 8:22-cv-00244-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order that the date for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification be continued to April 10, 2023 to July 10, 2023. American Financial provides finance services. The Company offers loan for buying homes. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YoA95S at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Extension of Case Deadlines in Qureshi Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAAZ QURESHI, MATTHEW RABINOWITZ, and DANISH ARIF, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01141-CRC (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification and expert case deadlines as set by the Court on Dec. 15, 2022. -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class April 17, 2023 Certification: -- Plaintiffs' Class and Merits April 17, 2023 Expert Disclosures: -- The Defendant's Class and Merits May 22, 2023 Expert Disclosures: -- The Defendant's Opposition to June 16, 2023 Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion: -- The Plaintiffs' Reply In Support July 24, 2023 of Class Certification: -- Fact Discovery: May 15, 2023 1. The Plaintiffs previously filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Case Deadlines on Dec. 14, 2022. 2. The Court granted these extensions in its Minute Order, dated Dec. 15, 2022. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Class and Merits Expert Disclosures are currently due on March 2, 2023; Defendant's Class and Merits Expert Disclosures are currently due on April 3, 2023; The Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion is currently due on May 1, 2023; and Plaintiffs' Reply In Support of Class Certification is due on June 12, 2023. 3. To date the Parties have worked cooperatively through the discovery process and are currently working on towards ensuring complete document productions by the parties and scheduling deposition of both Parties, including numerous employees or representatives of AU. 4. The Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof for showing that this case is suitable for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. American University is a private federally chartered research university in Washington, D.C. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IDEzQN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony A. Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 - and - Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com - and - Curtis A. Boykin, Esq. DOUGLAS & BOYKIN PLLC 1850 M Street, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 776-0370 E-mail: caboykin@douglasboykin.com The Defendant is represented by: Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq. Ryanne E. Perio, Esq. Bruce M. Berman, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY Telephone: (212) 230-8800 E-mail: Alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com Ryanne.perio@wilmerhale.com Bruce.berman@wilmerhale.com APPLE INC: Herrera Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled JUAN HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00411, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 27, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00867-SVK to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant for its practice of harvesting data from iPhones and Apple's other consumer personal computing devices, such as iPads, Macs using apps from the Apple "App Store," etc., which violate state consumer deceptive practice and advertising laws; federal and state trespass laws; and breaches of various equitable principles and of common law. Apple, Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Paul C. Whalen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Telepone: (516) 426-6870 E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Jordan Scott Joachim, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING 620 8th Ave., 42nd Floor, #4204A New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 841-1086 E-mail: jjoachim@cov.com - and - Kathryn Cahoy, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com ARAMARK CAMPUS: Williams Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ARMAND WILLIAMS and ALAN MICHAEL LARRECOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; YOSEMITE HOSPITALITY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CVCV0011897, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Mariposa, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00154 to the proceeding. The complaint is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com ASSESSOR OF MINEOLA: Romano Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Mineola, et al. The case is styled as Denise Romano, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Mineola, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Mineola, Respondents, Case No. 603432/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 1, 2023). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Mineola -- https://www.mineola-ny.gov/ -- is a village in and the county seat of Nassau County, on Long Island, in New York, United States.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ASSISTCARE HOME: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over 2021 Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Liza Berger of McKnights Home Care reports that in another sign of the growing threat of cybercrime in home care, AssistCare Home Health Services, which does business as Preferred Home Care of New York, has agreed to a class-action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect patient and employee data in a 2021 data breach. The data breach allegedly compromised the information of 92,283 patients and employees, including sensitive health information and personal data, according to a March 3, 2023 report in The HIPAA Journal. The total value of the settlement was not disclosed. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to $400 in ordinary loss compensation and up to $3,500 for extraordinary loss compensation. The Sodinokibi ransomware group was the perpetrator of the attack, the journal said. It published some of the stolen data, which included names and Social Security numbers, on its data leak site. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) reported that healthcare and public health were the top targets of ransomware attacks last year. A report earlier this year by the Theft Research Center also identified healthcare as one of the biggest targets of computer hackers. Some 322 healthcare organizations suffered data breaches in 2022 -- the third year in a row the industry led all others in the number of data compromises, according to the Theft Research Center report. [GN] ATLANTIC UNION BANK: Blackcat Events Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Union Bank. The case is styled as Blackcat Events LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Atlantic Union Bank as successor in interest to Access National Bank, Case No. 3:23-cv-00154-REP (E.D. Va., March 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Recovery/Enforcement Contract for Breach of Contract. Atlantic Union Bank -- https://www.atlanticunionbank.com/ -- offers a variety of Personal Banking services including accounts, lending, credit cards, online banking and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devon James Munro, Esq. MUNRO BYRD P.C. 120 Day Ave. SW, First Floor Roanoke, VA 24016 Phone: (540) 283-9343 Fax: (540) 328-9290 Email: dmunro@trialsva.com AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gerald Walker, III, et al., v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00449-CKJ (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson entered an order that the case, alleging class action claims challenging the Defendant's standard practice of depreciating both labor and materials for property loss claims allegedly in violation of Arizona law, a complex case and assigns it to the complex track for case management. The Court further ordered that the parties shall abide by the following schedule and rules: -- Initial disclosures, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been exchanged. The Court notifies the parties that to satisfy the requirement of Rule 26, the parties shall file a Notice of Service of discovery papers with the Clerk of the Court, rather than copies of actual disclosures. -- Mediation: The parties will exchange data and engage in mediation with a mediator jointly selected to attempt settlement of this action by April 14, 2023. -- Notice of Plaintiff's initial expert 5 testimony pursuant to Federal Rule 26(a)(2) shall take place on or before July 14, 2023. -- The Defendant's initial expert testimony pursuant to Federal Rule 26(a)(2) shall take place on or before September 1, 2023, with any rebuttal expert testimony shall be completed on or before September 15, 2023; -- Discovery (class certification and Plaintiff's claim), including depositions of parties and witnesses, shall be completed by May 12, 2023; -- Class Certification motion: due September 29, 2023. -- Dispositive motions (Plaintiff's individual claim and affirmative defenses) shall be filed on or before September 29, 2023; Dispositive motions (class claims and damages) due by 200 days after class certification. Auto-Owners is a mutual insurance company that provides life, home, car, and business insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kFF5po at no extra charge.[CC] BHS MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW W. COVIELLO, NATHAN BYRNE and VICTORIA HALSTED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BHS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BHS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 3:20-cv-30198-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the Action as a class action; 2. appointing them as representatives of the proposed class defined as: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between December 30, 2014 through the date of judgment (the "Class Period"); and 3. appointing their counsel as counsel for the Class. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YiRf5b at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com donr@capozziadler.com BIMBO BAKERIES: Ellison-Robbins Sues Over Mislabeled Cake Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dixie Ellison-Robbins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00232, (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breaches of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment and for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Bimbo Bakeries manufactures and sells an "All Butter" cake purporting to get its entire butter taste from butter under the Entenmann's brand. Allegedly, the Defendant's website tells purchasers to "indulge yourself with the rich taste of pure butter in our All Butter" cake. However, the labeling is misleading because the product includes added artificial flavor which contributes to its butter taste, yet omits this information from the front label, the suit says. The Plaintiff asserts that she paid more for the product than she would have paid had she known that "All Butter" was false and misleading or would not have purchased it. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is the American corporate arm of the Mexican multinational bakery product manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Harvath, Esq. HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC 75 W Lockwood Ave Ste 1 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 550-3717 E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com BISSELL HOMECARE: Appeals Remand of Rowland Suit to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- BISSELL HOMECARE INC. filed an appeal from the District Court Order dated Feb. 17. 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled CARA ROWLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BISSELL HOMECARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2-22-cv-01500, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Pennsylvania, County of Allegheny (Case No. GD-22-011649) to the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 25, 2022. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief curtailing unlawful business practices related to consumer products manufactured, sold, and warranted by Bissell. On November 22, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on Feb. 17, 2023. Judge Wiegand further ORDERED that BISSELL's November 1, 2022 motion to dismiss is DENIED as MOOT. The appellate case is captioned as Cara Rowland v. BISSELL Homecare Inc., Case No. 23-8012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Feb. 27, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner BISSELL HOMECARE INC is represented by: Joe N. Nguyen, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG 2005 Market Street, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564-8095 Plaintiff-Respondent CARA ROWLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 - and - Elizabeth P. Avery, Esq. Kenneth A. Held, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 BLOCK INC: Hart Securities Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled JORDAN MICHAEL HART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOCK, INC., formerly known as Square Inc., JACK DORSEY, ANTHONY EISEN, and AMRITA AHUJA, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00455, was removed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01579-UA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Block securities during the period November 4, 2021 and April 4, 2022, including all former shareholders of financial technology company Afterpay securities who acquired unregistered Block, Inc. Class A common stock in direct exchange for Afterpay shares pursuant to Block's January 31, 2022 acquisition and stock-for-stock merger with Afterpay. Block, Inc. is an American multinational technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David William Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 - and - Armen Zohrabian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: AZohrabian@hedinhall.com - and - Frank James Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 110 W. A Street, Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 238-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com BOSTON UNIVERSITY : Suit Seeks to Certify Fulltime Student Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dutra v. Trustees of Boston University, Case No. 1:20-cv-10827-RGS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying the action as a class action and appointing "Proposed Class Counsel" as Class Counsel. Specifically, the Plaintiffs move for an order certifying a Class defined as follows: "All fulltime students whom Boston University charged net tuition and/or fees for in-person educational services, programs, and campus facilities access during the Spring 2020 semester, where such charges were paid, and where such net tuition and/or fees have not been refunded." The case involves BOSTON UNIVERSITY COVID-19 REFUND LITIGATION Boston University is a private research university in Boston, Massachusetts. BU was founded in 1839 by a group of Boston Methodists with its original campus in Newbury, Vermont, before being chartered in Boston in 1869. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KZUsns at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick F. Madden, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: pmadden@bm.net emdrake@bm.net - and - Conor B. McDonough, Esq. Kathryn Lee Boyd, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 851-6821 E-mail: cmcdonough@hechtpartners.com lboyd@hechtpartners.com - and - Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Roy T. Willey IV, Esq. Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Paul Doolittle, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: blake@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com eric@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com dank@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N California Blvd, Ste 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com - and - Michael C. Forrest, Esq. FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C. 2 Salem Green, Suite 2 Salem MA 01970 Telephone: (617) 231-7829 E-mail: mforrest@forrestlamothe.com - and - Richard E. Levine, Esq. STANZLER LEVINE, LLC 65 William Street, Suite 205 Wellesley, MA 02481 Telephone: (617) 482-3198 E-mail: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com CANADA: Class Action Over Illegal Prison Strip Searches Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that Ontario's Superior Court of Justice has certified a class-action lawsuit alleging that Canadian authorities illegally strip searched federal inmates hundreds of thousands of times over three decades. The statement of claim filed against the government accuses prison officials of inappropriate conduct, seeks an end to searches that are not authorized by federal law and seeks compensation for victims. While laws currently dictate that strip searches should be limited to instances when an inmate might have had access to drugs or other contraband, the lawsuit alleges they were far more frequent, and regularly occurred when inmates left prison buildings or secure areas, entered family visitation rooms or were transferred to different facilities. Inmates were forced to "remove all clothing, bend over, spread their buttocks, manipulate their genitalia, remove soiled tampons and squat naked while their bodily orifices were inspected," the statement of claim says. Lawyers for the claimants say this is a violation of basic individual liberties -- and the government must stop breaking its own laws. But the government is denying the majority of the allegations. Its statement of defence says that contraband "is available, has been found and will continue to be subject to concealment attempts" when inmates have access to locations where non-prisoners, such as visitors, are also allowed to go. "Routine strip searches are an essential component of an integrated safety and security strategy within penitentiaries and in the broader correctional context," the document says. The Supreme Court has condemned the practice, however, saying in a 2001 ruling that searches are "one of the most extreme exercises of police power" and are inherently "humiliating and degrading." Former inmate Michael Farrell is quoted in the statement of claim saying that the searches he experienced during his 15 years behind bars were "highly invasive" and led to a "flood of negative emotions." In an interview, Farrell said the experiences were "embarrassing and humiliating," and would take place even as he was being moved from one secure location to another -- putting into question why correctional officers would have suspected he had access to contraband. "I put myself there. I get that. But the excessiveness of always being stripped -- sometimes the guards make fun of you -- it's just a terrible experience overall," he said. A July 2020 document prepared for the federal public safety minister ahead of a parliamentary appearance, which was put online under proactive disclosure policy, said the Correctional Service Canada is "committed to safe, humane and effective corrections for offenders in Canada." The document, which laid out how the minister could respond to concerns about the class-action suit, said the agency only conducts strip searches "in the most discrete, humane and sensitive manner possible by trained professionals." Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, whose portfolio includes the correctional service, did not respond to a request for comment. Kent Elson, one of the lawyers representing the applicants, said in an interview that the government is breaking its own laws restricting the use of strip searches, and they are taking place "far too often." "Certifying a class action like this will hopefully make prison officials much more careful, and work a lot harder to stop unnecessary strip searches," he said. "Prisoners suffer. And eventually, society suffers, when prisoners come out of prison and they've been traumatized." Now that the lawsuit has been certified, it will proceed to a common issues trial, and a judge will determine which issues apply to all class members. Dates have not yet been set for those proceedings. The government's statement of defence argues that the class-action lawsuit is "overly broad and unmanageable" because it includes inmates incarcerated over the last 30 years "regardless of whether they were subjected to routine strip searches and/or experienced harm from routine strip searches." That time period could result in claims that fall outside the statute of limitations for civil cases, it adds. The statement of defence says that claims should be restricted to a more recent two-year period and "only include individuals who actually experienced a routine strip search, which caused or materially contributed to recognizable and compensable psychological or emotional harm." [GN] CARRIE SLATTON-HODGES: Briggs Files Suit in N.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carrie Slatton-Hodges, et al. The case is styled as Leslie Briggs, as next friend of T.W. and B.S.; Evan Watson, as next friend of C.R.; Henry A Meyer, III, as next friend of A.M., for themselves and for others similarly situated v. Carrie Slatton-Hodges, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services; Crystal Hernandez, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Oklahoma Forensic Center, Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla., March 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Carrie Slatton-Hodges is the Commissioner for the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Wayne Leimbach, Esq. Frederic Dorwart, Esq. Paul DeMuro, Esq. FREDERIC DORWART, LAWYERS PLLC 124 East Fourth Street Tulsa, OK 74103-5027 Phone: (918) 808-3961 Fax: (918) 583-8251 Email: dleimbach@fdlaw.com fdorwart@fdlaw.com pdemuro@fdlaw.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Katz Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------- Sara Katz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 506411/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., March 1, 2023), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA" or "Act") as a result of the Defendant's use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. Some time prior to April 29, 2022, Plaintiff allegedly incurred an obligation to non-party original creditor Citibank, N.A. The obligation arose out of a transaction involving a debt to Citi in which money, property, insurance or services, that are the subject of the transaction(s), were incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Citi sold the debt to Cavalry SPV I, LLC. SPV assigned the account to Cavalry to collect the alleged debt. On April 29, 2022, Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter ("the Letter"). The collection Letter contains contradictory messages concerning restarting the statute of limitations. Moreover, in addition to being inherently confusing, the collection Letter fails to explain whether the debt is subject to sale to a new creditor and/or assignment to a new debt collector that can sue if the Plaintiff acknowledges, promises to pay or makes a payment on the debt. Thus, the potential to restart the statute of limitations is not adequately explained and results in at least 5 different reasonable interpretations, at least one of which is inaccurate. First, if payment, admission or promise to pay is made, the legal time period to enforce the debt in court may be restarted. Second, restarting the time period to enforce the debt in court is illegal. Third, even if restarting the time period to enforce the debt is legal, Defendant and SPV promise not to sue; Fourth, Defendant and SPV promise not to sue, but no promises concerning resale or reassignment of the debt. Fifth, if anyone other than Defendant and SPV acquire rights to the debt after waiver of the statute of limitations, the time period in which the debt is enforceable in court may start again and you may be sued. By providing conflicting information concerning the potential to restart the statute of limitations, and at least 5 possible interpretations of the information, the Letter is false, deceptive and misleading. The Plaintiff was confused as to whether she could be sued over the debt or not. The Plaintiff was misled to her detriment by the statements in the Letter, and relied on the contents of the Letter to her detriment. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings. The 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 CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Browne Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jarrod Browne, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Cedars-Sinai Health System, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Case No. 23STCV00469 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 1, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01551 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cedars-Sinai -- https://www.cedars-sinai.org/ -- offers world-class specialty care from expert physicians.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Teresa C. Chow, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Phone: (310) 820-8800 Fax: (310) 820-8859 Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Dawes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK DAWES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. and ATLANTIC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01130-ZNQ-LHG (D.N.J., Feb. 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Declaratory Judgment Act and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The class action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed class of all persons who have been advised by the Defendants via a form notice that their private medical information and other private information maintained on CentraState Healthcare computer and electronic data storage systems had been compromised as a result of a data breach announced by CentraState on February 10, 2023. Information compromised as a result of this data breach included highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, and other sensitive medical records and includes personally identifiable information and protected health information, says the suit. As a result of CentraState's actions and inactions, Plaintiffs and the class 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, the suit alleges. CentraState Healthcare System, Inc. is a private, not-for-profit health organization that serves primarily New Jersey patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: $8.1M Class Settlement to be Heard on June 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP issued a statement regarding the Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-02706-ARR-JMW CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS, INC. ("CHEMBIO" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK DIRECTLY IN OR TRACEABLE TO CHEMBIO'S MAY 2020 OFFERING AND/OR OTHERWISE PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED CHEMBIO COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD BETWEEN MARCH 12, 2020 THROUGH JUNE 16, 2020, INCLUSIVE, AND ARE NOT OTHERWISE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS (THE "CLASS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a hearing will be held in the above-captioned action (the "Action") on June 5, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Allyne R. Ross at the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Courtroom 8C South, Brooklyn, NY 11201, for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $8,100,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount; (4) to award Lead Plaintiffs reimbursement for their time and expenses in connection with their representation of the Class; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear remotely at the hearing, without further written notice to the Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement website, www.ChembioSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any and all updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.ChembioSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement Hearing by remote means, the information for accessing the conference will be posted to the Settlement website, www.ChembioSecuritiesSettlement.com. IF YOU PURCHASED CHEMBIO COMMON STOCK DIRECTLY IN OR TRACEABLE TO CHEMBIO'S PUBLIC OFFERING OF COMMON STOCK PURSUANT TO A PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 7, 2020 (THE "MAY 2020 OFFERING"), OR OTHERWISE PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED CHEMBIO COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH 12, 2020 THROUGH JUNE 16, 2020, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than June 23, 2023) or electronically (no later than June 23, 2023). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by June 23, 2023, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receipt of any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you purchased Chembio common stock directly in or traceable to Chembio's May 2020 Offering, or otherwise purchased or acquired Chembio common stock between March 12, 2020 through June 16, 2020, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at www.ChembioSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to: Chembio Securities Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 301134 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP LAWRENCE M. ROLNICK 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 597-2800 IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY MAY 15, 2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT TIMELY AND VALIDLY REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ACTION PURSUANT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE STIPULATION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 27.5% OF THE $8,100,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $50,000, OR TO AN AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFFS IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR REPRESENTATION OF THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY MAY 15, 2023, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 K&L GATES LLP JOHN W. ROTUNNO 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602 JOANNA A. DIAKOS 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP LAWRENCE M. ROLNICK 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP COLLEEN C. SMITH 12670 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class at the addresses listed above or by email at settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com. DATED: FEBRUARY 3, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.ChembioSecuritiesSettlement.com. CI MUTUAL FUNDS: Investors Won 17-Year Long Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Clare O'Hara of The Globe and Mail reports that after a 17-year court battle, an Ontario judge has ruled in favour of retail investors who suffered losses as two Canadian companies had let big investors make profitable, improper trades in a number of their funds. Ontario Superior Court Justice Markus Koehnen in February found that both CI Mutual Funds Inc. and AIC Limited, which is now known as AIC Global Holdings Inc., breached their duty of care to prevent market-timing trades in their funds. While the court found both companies did not breach their fiduciary duties, they did act negligently, and the court directed a separate trial to determine damages. Also known as frequent trading or short-term trading, market timing is a practice where certain sophisticated investors are allowed to move in and out of their funds very quickly. The practice dilutes the returns available to long-term unit holders The class action includes any investors who held money in AIC funds from Jan. 1, 1999, to Sept. 30, 2003, or CI Mutual funds from Sept. 1, 1998, to Sept. 30, 2003. Counsel for the plaintiffs estimate damages to investors could total as much as $674-million. "There was ample evidence before me to demonstrate that the standard of care during the class period required the defendants to be aware of the dangers of frequent trading in and out of their funds and take reasonable steps to prevent it," Justice Koehnen said in the court decision. "The harm that frequent trading causes to long-term unitholders has been known for decades." AIC Global Holdings did not respond to requests made by The Globe and Mail. CI Investments spokesperson Murray Oxby said in an e-mail that "this decision is lengthy and deals with many issues. CI is considering the reasons and its legal position." The mutual-fund market-timing scandal first exploded into view in 2003 in the United States when then-New York attorney-general Eliot Spitzer announced a settlement with Canary Capital, a small fund company. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the primary regulator of the U.S. fund industry, and various state officials then jumped in. Ultimately, industry participants - the fund companies and the traders who benefitted – executed settlements amounting to US$4.25-billion in penalties and returned profits, according to academic Jerry W. Markham in a 2006 article in the Hastings Business Law Journal. At the same time, the Ontario Securities Commission launched its own investigation into similar practices in the province, resulting in five Canadian asset managers - including both defendants - entering into settlement agreements with the provincial regulator. The five companies, which also included IG Investment Management Ltd., Franklin Templeton Investments Corp. and AGF Funds Inc., paid over $200-million to their respective fundholders, according to recent court documents. Mr. Oxby confirmed that CI paid $49.3-million to investors as part of that settlement in 2004. In 2006, investors launched a class-action lawsuit against all five companies that settled with the OSC, with retail clients alleging that this frequent trading diluted the returns of long-term investors in the funds. Three of the companies have since settled with plaintiffs, leaving AIC Limited and CI Mutual Funds Inc., now known as CI Investments Inc., to go to trial. The case took over six years to certify as a class action, including an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. The trial was eventually held over the course of three months in 2022, with a decision ruled last month. "For retail investors this is an important day for accountability, for behavior modification and to really send a signal to the wider investment industry that there will be consequences for conduct that does not meet the appropriate standard of care and where steps are not taken to appropriately protect unit holders," said Joel Rochon, co- lead counsel for the plaintiff and managing partner at Rochon Genova LLP, in an interview. Justice Koehnen said in his decision that mutual fund prospectuses - documents that are provided to investors upon purchasing a fund - warned that frequent trading caused harm to funds and could result in fees of up to 2 per cent being charged to participants. Despite the contents of their prospectuses, the defendants not only failed to take steps to prevent frequent trading or charge the fees set out in their prospectuses when it occurred, they facilitated the practice by entering into "switch agreements" that allowed certain investors to switch in and out of funds for a much lesser fee of only 0.2 per cent. The court found companies permitted sophisticated investors to execute large volume, short-term trades in their funds, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars per month, and billions of dollars per year in funds "switched in" and out. "The 2-per-cent fee would have stopped switching or frequent trading immediately," Justice Koehnen said. A hearing date for damages has not yet been determined. [GN] CITIBANK NA: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Suit Over Labor Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- The San Francisco employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Citibank, N.A., alleging the company violated the California Labor Code. The lawsuit against Citibank, N.A. is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 23-CIV-00588. According to the lawsuit filed, Defendant allegedly (a) failed to pay minimum wages, (b) failed to pay overtime wages, (c) failed to provide legally required meal and rest periods, (d) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (e) failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, (f) failed to provide wages when due, and (g) failed to pay sick pay wages, all in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in California Labor Code Sections Sections 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s), and thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a result of such alleged conduct. The Complaint alleges Citibank, N.A. failed to pay employees for all the time they were under the employer's control. This, allegedly, includes the time Plaintiff and California Class Members had to submit to mandatory COVID-19 screening prior to clocking in for the day. To the extent that the time worked off the clock did not qualify for overtime premium payment, Defendant allegedly failed to pay minimum and overtime wages for the time worked off-the-clock. For more information about the class action lawsuit against Citibank, N.A., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced California employment attorney. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, Orange County, and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, and other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN] CLARIVATE PLC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in PA -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Company continues to defend itself from Securities Act class suit in Pennsylvania state court in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. On June 7, 2022, a class action was filed in Pennsylvania state court in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933, based on substantially similar allegations, with respect to alleged misstatements and omissions in the offering documents for two issuances of Clarivate ordinary shares in June and September 2021. The Company moved to stay this proceeding on August 19, 2022, and filed its preliminary objections to the state court complaint on October 21, 2022. Clarivate does not believe that the claims alleged in the complaints have merit and will vigorously defend against them. Clarivate is a global information services and analytics company serving the scientific research, intellectual property, and life sciences end-markets.[BN] CLOUDERA INC: May 15 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------ The following Pendency of Class Action involving acquirers of Cloudera, Inc. Common Shares is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA IN RE CLOUDERA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Lead Case No. 19CV348674 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO ACQUIRED THE COMMON SHARES OF CLOUDERA, INC. PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORMS S-4 AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MERGER OF CLOUDERA, INC. AND HORTONWORKS, INC. Please be advised that your rights may be affected by a class action lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara if you acquired common shares of Cloudera, Inc. ("Cloudera") in connection with Cloudera's January 3, 2019 merger and acquisition of Hortonworks, Inc. ("Hortonworks") (the "Merger"). A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to a court Order dated November 20, 2022, a class has been certified in a class action entitled In re Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CV348674 (the "Action"), pending before Judge Patricia M. Lucas of the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County (the "Court"). The Action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who acquired Cloudera common shares pursuant to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 and the Form 424B3 Prospectus (the "Offering Materials") issued in connection with the Merger (the "Class"), and asserts claims under the federal Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against: (1) Cloudera, (2) Intel Corporation; and (3) certain of Cloudera's current and former officers and directors who signed the Offering Materials for the Merger (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, allege that all Defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act because the Offering Materials, pursuant to which Cloudera common shares were offered, contained materially false or misleading statements and/or omitted material information required to be disclosed therein. Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of the Class, that Cloudera violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and that, pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act, each Defendant is liable as a "controlling person" of one or more of the other Defendants (or their employees or other agents) who violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2). Defendants deny all of these allegations, deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing, and deny that they have any liability or violated the Securities Act. The Court has decided that the Action should proceed as a class action on behalf of a Class that (subject to certain exclusions) consists of "All persons who acquired Cloudera common stock in exchange for Hortonworks, Inc. securities pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Cloudera's January 2019 merger and acquisition of Hortonworks. Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) the Individual Defendants' immediate families; (iii) the officers and directors of Cloudera and Intel; and (iv) any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest." If you are a member of the Class, your rights may be affected by this Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Notice"), you may obtain copies by writing to Notice Administrator, Cloudera Class Action, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 6074, Portland, OR 97228-6074, tel. (800) 655-8220, or by downloading this information at www.ClouderaSecuritiesLitigation.com. Inquiries, other than requests for a copy of the Notice, may be made to class counsel: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, c/o James I. Jaconette, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, tel. (619) 231-1058 or Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, c/o John T. Jasnoch, 600 West Broadway, Suite 3300, San Diego, CA 92101, tel. (619) 233-4565. You have the right to request exclusion (opt out) from the Class. If you do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by past and any future rulings of the Court on the claims asserted against the Defendants, even if there is no recovery. IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, IF YOU WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY MAY 15, 2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO DO NOT VALIDLY REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE DETERMINATIONS, INCLUDING ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS, THAT THE COURT HAS MADE OR WILL MAKE IN THIS ACTION, EVEN IF THERE IS NO RECOVERY. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: March 1, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY Contacts Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP James I. Jaconette Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP John T. Jasnoch Telephone: (619) 233-4565 URL// www.ClouderaSecuritiesLitigation.com COGNYTE SOFTWARE: OPFRS Sues Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------- City Of Omaha Police and Firefighters Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COGNYTE SOFTWARE LTD, ELAD SHARON, and DAVID ABADI, Case No. 1:23-cv-01769 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2023), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Cognyte common stock between February 2, 2021 and June 28, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Cognyte and certain of its officers and/or directors, for violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder as a result of the Defendants misleading statements and omissions that concealed the fact that Cognyte's business practices violated Meta Platforms Inc.'s ("Meta") community standards and terms of services. Cognyte began trading as an independent entity in February 2021 following a spin-off from Verint Systems Inc. ("Verint"). Cognyte's stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker CGNT. On December 4, 2019, Verint announced plans to separate into two independent companies: Cognyte Software Ltd., which would consist of Verint's Cyber Intelligence Solutions business, and Verint Systems Inc., which would consist of Verint's Customer Engagement Business. On February 1, 2021, Cognyte and Verint completed the spin-off and the related separation and distribution. As a result, Cognyte became an independent, publicly traded company whose shares were (and continue to be) listed on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CGNT." Cognyte purports to be a global leader in security analytics software. The Class Period starts on February 2, 2021, the day Cognyte's ordinary shares registered pursuant to a January 14, 2021 amended registration statement on Form 20-F (the "Registration Statement"), which the SEC declared effective on January 15, 2021, began trading on the NASDAQ. The Registration Statement made misleading statements and omitted material information about the Company's business, specifically with respect to the solutions and services it provided (and continues to provide) to customers. On December 16, 2021, after the market closed, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, issued a "Threat Report," which included the results of its "months long" investigation into the "surveillance-for-hire industry," revealing for the first time that Cognyte (along with six private companies) regularly targeted, without their knowledge, journalists, dissidents, critics of authoritarian regimes, families of opposition, and human rights activists around the world, and collected intelligence on these people by manipulating them to reveal information and/or by compromising their devices and accounts, in violation of Facebook's "multiple community standards and Terms of Service." On this news, the price of Cognyte's common stock fell 5.11%, closing on December 17, 2021, at $18 per share, before declining another 5.5% the next trading day. By December 22, 2021, Cognyte's stock had fallen to trade at $15 per share, representing a decline of nearly 21%. Then, on April 5, 2022, Cognyte issued its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended January 31, 2022 (the "2021 Annual Report"), revealing that the Company was forced to modify its solutions in response to the Threat Report. On the same day it published its 2021 Annual Report, Cognyte reported its fourth quarter 2021 financial results, representing the period during which Facebook disrupted and disabled Cognyte's use of its platforms for purposes of reconnaissance. The market also responded immediately and harshly. Cognyte's stock price plummeted over 31% on unusually high trading volume, closing at $8.03 per share on April 5, 2022, which was down $3.63 per share from its April 4, 2022 close of $11.66 per share. Then, on June 28, 2022, Cognyte released its first quarter 2022 financial results, which, once again, badly missed analyst estimates across the board. Cognyte's 1Q22 revenue of $87 million, for example, represented a decline of 25%. Analysts were expecting a decline of 2%. In response, analysts immediately downgraded the Company's rating and reduced their price targets. On this news, Cognyte's shares declined $1.84, or over 28.66%, to close at $4.58 per share, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Cognyte common stock. Cognyte is an Israel-based security analytics software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq. Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT, Attorneys at Law, LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Fax: (212) 223-6334 Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com dbroggi@scott-scott.com rswartz@scott-scott.com jzimmerman@scott-scott.com COLONIAL LIFE: Takes Wage-and-Hour Allegations to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Bennet at Bloomberg News reports that Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. won its bid to force a worker's individual wage-and-hour allegations to arbitration and dismiss claims filed on behalf of a proposed class. The arbitration agreement the worker signed with Colonial Life isn't procedurally unconscionable, and although two cost-related provisions are substantively unconscionable, they are also severable from the rest of the agreement, so it's still enforceable, the US District Court for the Central District of California said. [GN] COMMUNITY HEALTH: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALEB PADILLA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE T. SMITH, LARRY CASH, and THOMAS J. AARON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00461 (M.D. Tenn.), the Parties jointly move the Court to extend all deadlines related to class certification set forth in this Court's Second Modified Case Management Order dated December 15, 2022 to accommodate a March 9, 2023 in-person mediation, leaving all other dates intact. a. Plaintiffs must file their motion April 5, 2023 for class certification by no later than: b. The Defendants' response to the June 5, 2023 motion must be filed by no later than; c. The Plaintiffs may file an optional July 20, 2023 reply by no later than: The following other deadlines have been set in this Action but are unaffected by the requested extension: a. Amend or add parties: April 7, 2023 b. First mediation deadline: June 2, 2023 c. Fact discovery cutoff: August 11, 2023 d. Expert disclosure: October 13, 2023 e. Rebuttal expert disclosure: December 1, 2023 f. Second mediation deadline: January 19, 2024 g. Expert discovery cutoff: January 31, 2024 h. Dispositive motions: March 18, 2024 i. Target trial date: September 24, 2024 Community Health owns, leases, and operates hospitals. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZeesXt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. Louis C. Ludwig, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 229-8811 E-mail: jbsilverman@pomlaw.com lcludwig@pomlaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Melissa C. Wright, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com csadler@glancylaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com beng@bsjfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven A. Riley, Esq. Milton S. McGee, III, Esq. Joshua S. Bolian, Esq. RILEY & JACOBSON, PLC 1906 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 320-3700 Facsimile: (615_ 320-3737 E-mail: sriley@rjfirm.com tmcgee@rjfirm.com jbolian@rjfirm.com CONDUENT INC: $32MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 24 ---------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE CONDUENT INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No.: 2:19-cv-08237-SDW-AME Hon. Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J. Hon. André M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons who purchased Conduent Incorporated common stock on the open market on a United States stock exchange from February 21, 2018 through November 6, 2018, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PENDING CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that Class Representatives Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System ("OFPRS"), Plymouth County Retirement Association ("PCRA") and Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. ("Local 103") (collectively, "Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and all members of the Class, and Defendants Conduent Incorporated, Ashok Vemuri, and Brian Webb-Walsh (collectively, "Defendants" and, together with Class Representatives, the "Parties"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") and related claims in the amount of $32,000,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable André M. Espinosa, either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on May 24, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2D of the Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07102 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether: (i) the Court should approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the releases specified in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 1, 2022 (and in the Notice), should be granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") should be approved; and (iv) Co-Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application should be approved. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website for the Settlement, www.ConduentSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: In re Conduent Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91353 Seattle, WA 98111 info@conduentsecuritieslitigation.com 877-415-0639 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Class Counsel: BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP Michael S. Bigin, Esq. 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10006 Conduentsettlement@bernlieb.com 212-779-1414 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Christine M. Fox, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 settlementquestions@labaton.com 888-219-6877 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 19, 2023. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than May 3, 2023. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than May 3, 2023. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CO-CLASS COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR USING THE CONTACT INFORMATION ABOVE. BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CORRECTCARE INTEGRATED: Hiley, et al., Seek to Consolidate Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIRGINIA HILEY, et al., V. CORRECTCARE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00319-DCR (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Danny C. Reeves entered an order: 1. granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to consolidate and appointing interim class counsel. 2. consolidating Lexington Civil Action Nos. 5: 22-319-DCR and 5: 23-021-DCR for all purposes. 3. designating the following attorneys interim co-lead class counsel: Benjamin F. Johns; Gary M. Klinger; J. Gerard Stranch IV; and Lynn A. Toops. The plaintiffs allege that CorrectCare discovered on July 6, 2022, that one of its web servers was misconfigured such that patients' private information could be publicly accessed over the internet ("the Data Breach"). According to the plaintiffs' motion, the data was subject to unauthorized access for nearly six months and involved at least 496,589 patients' private information. Virginia Hiley's private information was compromised during the Data Breach. She subsequently experienced numerous breaches of her personal accounts and was subject to multiple phishing and scam calls. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y6c5ua at no extra charge.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Johnson Files Suit in D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against District of Columbia Government, et al. The case is styled as James Johnson, and all persons similarly situated v. District of Columbia Government; Muriel Bowser, Honorable; District Of Columbia Police Training Department; J. Trumble, Officer, Department #15, Parking Enforcement Agency, and all other officers similarly situated, Case No. 1:23-cv-00558-UNA (D.D.C., March 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Washington, D.C. -- http://www.dc.gov/-- formally the District of Columbia, also known as Washington, the District, or D.C., is the capital city and federal district of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. DUN & BRADSTREET: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Batis Case ------------------------------------------------------------- DUN & BRADSTREET HOLDINGS, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to strike and, in the alternative, motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Odette R. Batis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01924-MMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. According to the plaintiff, Dun & Bradstreet Holdings' ("D&B") advertises and promotes the D&B Hoovers database by publicly displaying her profile on the D&B Hoovers website. Specifically, during a free trial of the D&B Hoovers database, which "typically" lasts for twenty-four hours, a user can search the D&B Hoovers website and see Batis' profile, comprised of her name, job title, place of work, and telephone number, as well as the identities of her work colleagues. Users, who attempt to download Batis' profile during the free trial or who attempt to view her profile after the free trial, are informed they must purchase a subscription. Ms. Batis concedes she may have consented to the posting of her name on the website of the company for which she works, or on a professional networking site, but alleges she did not give consent to D&B to use her name, personal information, or persona in any way, and was seriously distressed to discover that D&B is using her name and personal information to advertise subscriptions to the D&B Hoovers website without her consent. Based on these allegations, Batis asserts, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative California class, the following causes of action: (1) Violation of California Right of Publicity Statute, Cal. Civ. Code Section 3344, (2) Tort of Appropriation of a Name or Likeness, and (3) California Unfair Competition Law. D&B sought, pursuant to Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, an order striking the class action complaint in its entirety, or, in the alternative, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an order of dismissal. D&B moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) on the asserted ground that Batis does not have standing to bring her claims. On Feb. 9, 2023, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to strike and, in the alternative, motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Maxine M. Chesney. Judge Chesney held that Batis identifies four alleged injuries: (1) misappropriation of her intellectual property, specifically, her name and likeness, (2) unlawful profiting from D&B's unauthorized use of her persona, (3) invasion of her privacy rights, and (4) harm to peace of mind. Judge Chesney finds that Batis has established her alleged injuries are the sort of harms traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts. Accordingly, D&B's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) will be denied. D&B moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on the asserted ground that all of Batis' claims fail under state law, and, in addition, that her publicity and misappropriation claims are barred by the First Amendment. Here, contrary to D&B's argument, Judge Chesney held that Batis has not challenged her inclusion in the D&B Hoovers database; she challenges the use of her name and likeness to advertise subscriptions to the D&B Hoovers database. Judge Chesney further held that D&B fails to establish that Batis' common law misappropriation claim and statutory right of publicity claim fail under state law. Further, D&B, in arguing Batis' UCL claim must be dismissed on the same grounds as her other claims, while providing no additional argument as to the UCL claim, likewise fails to establish that Batis' UCL claim fails under state law. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Order, Judge Chesney ruled that D&B's motion to strike, and, in the alternative, to dismiss the Complaint is denied. The appellate case is captioned Odette Batis v. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc., Case No. 23-15260, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 24, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 3, 2023; -- Appellant Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. opening brief is due on April 24, 2023; -- Appellee Odette R. Batis 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] Plaintiff-Appellee ODETTE R. BATIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Marie Noel Appel, Esq. Michael Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-7155 (415) 358-6913 - and - Ben R. Osborn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN 102 Bergen Street, Suite 4 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (347) 645-0464 Defendant-Appellant DUN & BRADSTREET HOLDINGS, INC. is represented by: Ashley Kissinger, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR, LLP 1225 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 376-2407 - and - Michael Robert O'Donnell, Esq. RIKER DANZIG, LLP 1 Speedwell Avenue Morristown, NJ 07962 Telephone: (973) 451-8476 - and - Michael P. O'Mullan, Esq. RIKER DANZIG, LLP 1 Speedwell Avenue Morristown, NJ 07962 Telephone: (973) 538-0800 - and - Elizabeth L. Schilken, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR, LLP 2029 Century Park, E., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 204-4400 DUTCH BROS INC: Peacock Sues Over Exchange Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Peacock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DUTCH BROS INC., JONATHAN RICCI, and CHARLES L. JEMLEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-01794 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2023), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Dutch Bros securities between March 1, 2022, and May 11, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Company sells and distributes coffee and coffee-related products and accessories. The Company claims that as of March 31, 2022, it had 572 shops in operation in 12 U.S. states, of which 310 were company operated and 262 were franchised. On March 1, 2022, two-thirds of the way through the Company's first quarter of 2022, Dutch Bros held a conference call to discuss its fourth quarter and full year 2021 results. On the call, Defendants made numerous statements reassuring investors that the Company's first quarter 2022 results would be positive, and in particular that the Company's margins were healthy. For example, Defendant Jonathan "Joth" Ricci, the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") stated that, while Dutch Bros is "not immune to margin pressures," the Company was "managing it appropriately" and that "we are feeling good as we enter '22 with the trajectory of our margins, given everything going on." Defendant Charles L. Jemley, the Company's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") similarly stated "we're just not feeling compression in margins." However, on May 11, 2022, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release announcing poor financial results for the first quarter of 2022. Therein, the Company reported a net loss of $16.3 million, compared to a net loss of $4.8 million for the first quarter of 2021. The Company also reported an adjusted net loss of $2.5 million (a loss of $0.02 per share), which fell below the Street's estimated earnings of $0.01 per share. The same day, the Company held a conference call to discuss the Company's first quarter 2022 results. Defendant Ricci further explained: "we did not perceive the speed and magnitude of cost escalation within the quarter. Dairy, for example, which makes up 28% of our commodity basket, rose almost 25% in Q1." On this news, Dutch Bros' share price fell $9.26, or 26.9%, to close at $25.11 per share on May 12, 2022, thereby injuring investors. The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: that the Company was experiencing increased costs and expenses, including on dairy; that, as a result, the Company was experiencing increased margin pressure and decreased profitability in the first quarter of 2022; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Dutch Bros securities during the Class Period. Dutch Bros operates and franchises drive-thru coffee shops.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Ani Setian, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com asetian@glancylaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Phone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 DUTCH BROS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 1 --------------------------------------------------------- Benzinga of Newswire reports that Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Dutch Bros Inc. ("Dutch Bros" or the "Company") BROS between March 1, 2022 and May 11, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Dutch Bros operates and franchises drive-thru coffee shops. The Company also sells and distributes coffee and coffee-related products and accessories. The Company claimed that as of March 31, 2022, it had 572 shops in operation in 12 U.S. states, of which 310 were Company-operated and 262 were franchised. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that (1) the Company was experiencing increased costs and expenses, including on dairy; and (2) as a result, the Company was experiencing increased margin pressure and decreased profitability in the first quarter of 2022. On March 1, 2022, two-thirds of the way through the Company's first quarter of 2022, Dutch Bros held a conference call to discuss its fourth quarter and full year 2021 results. On the call, Defendants made numerous statements reassuring investors that the Company's first quarter 2022 results would be positive, and in particular that the Company's margins were healthy. Defendant Jonathan Ricci, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, stated that while Dutch Bros is "not immune to margin pressures," the Company was "managing it appropriately" and that "we are feeling good as we enter '22 with the trajectory of our margins, given everything going on." Defendant Charles L. Jemley, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, stated that "we're just not feeling compression in margins." However, on May 11, 2022, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release announcing poor financial results for the first quarter of 2022. Therein, the Company reported a net loss of $16.3 million, compared to a net loss of $4.8 million for the first quarter of 2021. The Company also reported an adjusted net loss of $2.5 million (a loss of $0.02 per share), which fell below the Street's estimated earnings of $0.01 per share. On this news, Dutch Bros' share price fell $9.26, or 26.9%, to close at $25.11 per share on May 12, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 1, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or acquired Dutch Bros securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Dutch Bros Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Peter Allocco Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (212) 951-2030 pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN] EARGO INC: Court Grants Motion Tto Dismiss Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ jdsupra.com reports that on February 14, 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action alleging that a hearing aid company (the "Company") and its officers, directors, and IPO underwriters falsely or misleadingly inflated the Company's revenue and growth opportunities and allegedly downplayed an insurance audit, leading to a Department of Justice investigation for insurance fraud. In re Eargo, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 21-cv-08597 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against all defendants, and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and its officers. The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead falsity and scienter. According to the amended complaint (the "Complaint"), the Company makes and directly sells hearing aids to consumers. Plaintiffs alleged that unlike the traditional hearing aid sales model, which requires customers to make in-person visits to hearing aid professionals who examine the customer, the Company developed a telecare model using an in-house team of individuals licensed in one or more states to advise customers on hearing aid needs. Plaintiffs alleged that initially the Company primarily sold its products to customers who paid out-of-pocket, but allegedly eventually targeted customers with a Federal Employees Health Benefits Program ("FEHBP") which provides health benefits through various insurance carriers, such as the Blue Cross Blue Shield Federal Employee Plan ("BCBS FEP"). Plaintiffs alleged that after targeting FEHBP beneficiaries, the Company's revenue more than doubled, and by the end of 2020, insured customers comprised approximately 45% of the Company's total customer base. Plaintiffs alleged that between March 15 and April 7, 2021, the Company was notified that it was being audited by BCBS and that the Company would be required to supply supporting documentation with all claims submitted. On May 12, 2021, in its Q1 2021 SEC Form 10-Q filing, the Company stated that it was "currently subject to a routine audit." According to the Amended Complaint, the Company updated investors on August 12, 2021, in its Q2 2021 filing, disclosing that in addition to being subject to the audit, "claims submitted since March 1, 2021 have not been paid." The Company also disclosed that "[r]eimbursement claims submitted to another insurance company are also currently undergoing an audit, and . . . it is possible that they may seek recoupments of previous claims paid and deny any future claims." The Company warned that "an unfavorable outcome of the ongoing audits could have a material adverse effect on our future financial results[.]" On an August 12, 2021 earnings call, the Company's CFO allegedly stated that "[t]hese kind of audits are-on claims are pretty common, particularly given the growth in our business." According to plaintiffs, after the August 12 filing, the Company's stock price dropped over 24%. Plaintiffs further alleged that during an August 16 meeting with analysts, the Company's CEO and CFO stated the audit was "not an issue with the benefit amount, the device delivered, or a dispute denial." On September 9, 2021, the CEO allegedly further stated that "audits in the hearing aid industry happen all the time, right." On September 22, 2021, the Company filed an SEC form 8-K notifying shareholders that the DOJ had begun conducting a criminal investigation into the Company's insurance reimbursement claims. Following this announcement, the Company's stock price allegedly dropped approximately 68%. According to the Complaint, in January 2022, the Company disclosed that the DOJ referred the matter to the Civil Division and that the criminal division was no longer active. On April 29, 2022, the DOJ purportedly issued a press release announcing a $34.37 million settlement with the Company "to settle common law and False Claims Act allegations of unsupported diagnosis code." In the press release, the DOJ noted that "[t]he claims settled by this agreement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability." For its part, the Company denied any wrongdoing. While the DOJ investigation was ongoing, several investors filed separate suits alleging violations of federal securities law, which were consolidated into a single putative class action. The Court first addressed plaintiffs' Securities Act claims. As a preliminary matter, the Court agreed with defendants that the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) governed plaintiffs' Section 11 claims because plaintiffs' Securities Act allegations generally mirrored their fraud-based allegations under the Exchange Act. In turn, the Court found that plaintiffs did not adequately plead falsity from statements made in the Company's offering documents sufficient for violations of Section 11 or Section 12(a)(2). The Court noted that the challenged statements generally fell into three categories: (i) unaudited financial results; (ii) statements concerning available insurance coverage; and (iii) risk factors concerning uncertainty surrounding available insurance and the Company's compliance with law. Regarding the Company's unaudited financial results, plaintiffs alleged that defendants' statements were inaccurate, misleading, or false because it was unlikely that the Company could collect insurance reimbursements as revenue. The Court emphasized that satisfying the standard for accounting statements of opinion to be actionable is "no small task," and found that plaintiffs fell short of meeting the standard because "[t]he Complaint contains no allegations of subjective falsity-that is, Plaintiffs do not allege, with particularity, facts showing that Defendants believed that FEHBP insurance companies would not reimburse the claims." The Court found that plaintiffs "merely speculate[d] that Defendants must know, or it was reckless that they did not know, from BCBS's policy manual that [the Company's] claims would be rejected for falsehood." Regarding defendants' allegedly false or misleading statements about the Company's ability to obtain insurance coverage and its growth opportunities through the insurance market, the Court found that these statements "simply conveyed corporate optimism," and that plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead that defendants believed that the mechanism for revenue growth through insurance coverage was unattainable. The Court determined that the alleged statements in the Offering Documents that the Company intended to target customers with eligible insurance coverage fell within the PSLRA safe harbor as forward-looking statements regarding plans and objectives for future operations. Similarly, the Court found that although plaintiffs "point to a handful of statements containing concrete facts that are quantifiable and verifiable . . . most of the challenged statements simply convey optimism for business growth," and were therefore nonactionable puffery. Regarding risk factors in the Company's SEC filings related to the uncertainty surrounding available insurance, its compliance with law, and its business model, the Court noted that "risk factors" are not actionable without further factual allegations indicating that the risks had already "come to fruition," and found that the Complaint did not contain well-pleaded facts showing that, at the time of the IPO, any insurer audit or regulatory investigation had begun such that it would make the Company's risk disclosures inaccurate. The Court, therefore, held that plaintiffs had not pleaded actionable claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and accordingly dismissed their Section 15 claim against a purported "control person" of the Company. The Court turned next to plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims. At the outset, the Court noted that these claims largely hinged on the same or similar categories as plaintiffs' Securities Act claim, and were not actionable for the same reasons. Plaintiffs did include additional misrepresentation allegations in support of their Exchange Act claims, alleging that the Company's representation that it "validates customer eligibility and reimbursement amounts prior to shipping the product" was false or misleading and that the Company falsely or misleadingly characterized and downplayed the BCBS audit as "routine" and "pretty common." The Court, however, found that it need not address whether a reasonable investor would have been misled by the Company's alleged statement about validating insurance eligibility (nor would it have been equipped to make such a factual determination at the pleadings stage) because plaintiffs did not plead a strong inference of scienter. The Court also found that plaintiffs did not adequately plead that the Company should have disclosed the BCBS audit in its Q4 2020 SEC Form 10-K because plaintiffs did not allege that the Company received the letter from BCBS in time for the Q4 2020 filing. Moreover, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that the Company's officers did not believe the insurance audit was routine or that their characterization of the audit was false or misleading at the time they disclosed it. Although the Court did find that plaintiffs adequately pled that the CEO "downplayed the audit" as part of his alleged statements made on September 9, 2021, the Court held that plaintiffs did not adequately plead scienter. According to the Court, plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that any individual defendants sold Company stock during the Class Period, or that the officers knew or should have known that the Company's telecare business model would not comport with the publicized insurance requirement that hearing aid benefits meet the criteria for "medical necessity." The Court further reasoned that plaintiffs failed to identify any alleged facts suggesting that the officers believed the BCBS audit was anything but routine and failed to offer any particularized allegation of what the Company's January 2021 "internal review" showed about its billing practices (or that the officers were even aware of such internal review). The Court similarly rejected plaintiffs' assertions that the Company's "rapid and substantial" settlement with the DOJ was evidence of scienter, and rejected plaintiffs' argument that the "core operations doctrine" established scienter, because "the Complaint cites no particularized facts that [defendants] believed, or they were deliberately reckless in disbelieving, that [the Company's] insurance submissions were false or improper." Therefore, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims, including their Section 20(a) control person claim. The Court permitted plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint. [GN] ENOVIX CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------ Enovix Corporation 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 faces a securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 6, 2023, a purported Company stockholder filed a securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making material misstatements or omissions in public statements related to its manufacturing scaleup. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased and/or acquired shares of the Company's common stock between February 22, 2021 and January 3, 2023. The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims in these actions. Enovix Corporation is a manufacturer of silicon-anode lithium-ion batteries, with its principal place of business in Fremont, California. [BN] ENOVIX CORP: Mediation in Sopheak Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Enovix Corporation 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 mediation process in Sopheak class suit is ongoing. On January 21, 2022, two former machine operator employees filed a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit against Enovix and co-defendant Legendary Staffing, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. The case is captioned Sopheak Prak & Ricardo Pimentel v Enovix Corporation and Legendary Staffing, Inc., 22CV005846. The Prak complaint alleges, among other things, on a putative class-wide basis, that the defendants failed to pay all overtime wages and committed meal period, rest period and wage statement violations under the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, statutory penalties and interest and reasonable costs and attorney fees. In September 2022, the Company began the mediation process. Enovix Corporation is a manufacturer of silicon-anode lithium-ionbatteries, with its principal place of business in Fremont, California.[BN] EUCLID CHEMICAL: Schmidt Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CARL SCHMIDT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., an Ohio Corporation; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware Corporation, ERIC PANCHO KONEVAL, an individual; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVPS2300271, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00314 to the proceeding. On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint in the Superior Court alleging 13 causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) wrongful termination; (3) retaliation (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) failure to pay wages; (6) inaccurate wage statements; (7) failure to keep payroll records; (8) deficient pay penalties; (9) unreimbursed business expenses; (10) waiting time penalties; (11) violation of unfair competition law; (12) age discrimination; and (13) California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Euclid Chemical Company designs and manufactures concrete chemicals.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Staggs-Wilson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West Fifth Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (213) 443-4299 E-mail: Estaggs-wilson@littler.com - and - Luis E. Lorenzana, Esq. Heidi Hegewald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101-3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: llorenzana@littler.com hhegewald@littler.com EXXONMOBIL CORP: Faces Suit Over Racially Hostile Workplace ------------------------------------------------------------ Giulia Heyward of GPB reports that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency, said it was suing ExxonMobil after several nooses were discovered at the company's complex in Baton Rouge, La. The EEOC said ExxonMobil failed to take action after a Black employee discovered a noose at his work station at the chemical plant in January 2020. At the time, it was the fourth noose uncovered at the Baton Rouge site -- and a fifth was found at the end of that year. ExxonMobil allegedly "investigated some, but not all, of the prior incidents and failed to take measures reasonably calculated to end the harassment" which resulted in "a racially hostile work environment," according to the EEOC's statement on March 9, 2023. ExxonMobil's lack of action, the federal agency alleges, was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "A noose is a longstanding symbol of violence associated with the lynching of African Americans," Elizabeth Owen, a senior trial attorney for the EEOC's New Orleans office, said in the statement. "Such symbols are inherently threatening and significantly alter the workplace environment for Black Americans." "Even isolated displays of racially threatening symbols are unacceptable in American workplaces," Michael Kirkland, director of the EEOC's New Orleans field office, added. ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment. On March 10, 2023, a company spokesperson told NBC News that it disagreed with the federal agency's findings. "We encourage employees to report claims like this, and we thoroughly investigated," the spokesperson said. "The symbols of hate are unacceptable, offensive, and in violation of our corporate policies." The EEOC filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, after it said it tried to reach a settlement. The incident is one of several alarming discoveries of nooses on display in the past few years. In November, a noose was discovered at the Obama Presidential Center construction site in Chicago. In May 2022, a noose was found hanging from a tree at Stanford University. In May 2021, Amazon halted construction of a warehouse after several nooses were uncovered at a site in Connecticut. And in June 2020, nooses were found at a public park in Oakland, Calif. [GN] FCA US: $835K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Moran Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative service awards. On Feb. 15, 2023, Judge Ohta conducted a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Service Awards. Having carefully considered the papers, evidence, and arguments presented by the parties, she finds, and orders, as follows: The Plaintiffs have entered into a proposed Settlement Agreement with Defendant FCA that has been preliminarily approved by separate order as fair, adequate, and reasonable to the certified Settlement Class. They now seek entry of an order for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. Judge Ohta finds that the Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties for settlement purposes, having achieved a Settlement that provides substantial relief and benefits for Class Members. They are therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs/expenses under California law. Judge Ohta has reviewed the Plaintiffs' submission and finds that the Class Counsel's time was reasonably spent and that their hourly rates are commensurate with the hourly prevailing rates for private attorneys in the community conducting class action litigation. Multiplying the documented hours the Class Counsel reasonably spent litigating the case by their hourly rates, she finds that the Class Counsel's $1,066,528.50 lodestar is reasonable. In addition, because the Plaintiffs seek an amount in fees that is less than what is actually billed, Judge Ohta holds that the requested fee amount is reasonable and appropriate. Applying a negative multiplier of .65 to the Class Counsel's lodestar of $1,066,528.50 yields the requested fee amount of $688,920.60, which she finds to be reasonable attorneys' fees for the services rendered. Judge Ohta has also reviewed the evidence of the Class Counsel's costs and expenses and concludes that they were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and are the type of expenses that firms ordinarily bill to a paying client. She therefore awards the Class Counsel their requested costs and expenses in the sum of $146,079.40. Finally, Judge Ohta finds that the Plaintiffs have rendered services on behalf of the Settlement Class, and therefore she awards each Plaintiff a service award of $10,000. In light of the foregoing, Judge Ohta grants the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees, costs, and service awards as stated, and awards a total of $835,000 in attorneys' fees and costs combined, and $10,000 for each service award. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4pzf6r6m from Leagle.com. FIAT CHRYSLER: Agreed to Settle 2016 Transmission Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ carcomplaints.com reports that Dodge Dart lawsuit settlement terms have been announced after a California plaintiff and Fiat Chrysler (FCA) agreed to settle the class action lawsuit originally filed in 2016. The Dart class action alleges the Fiat C635 manual transmissions are defective because the clutch pedals fall to the floorboards and prevent drivers from shifting gears. According to the lawsuit, the transmissions are damaged because of a loss of hydraulic fluid to the clutch slave cylinders. The plaintiff contends faulty seals prematurely wear out in the 2013-2015 Dodge Darts. The cars allegedly suffer acceleration problems, stalling problems and finally transmission failures. And the plaintiff claims other components fail, including the flywheel, release bearing, pressure plate, master cylinder and reservoir hose. The past seven years saw the class action lawsuit go from a proposed nationwide action to only original Dart customers in California. "If you currently own, or previously purchased or leased a manual-transmission model year 2013-2015 Dodge Dart manufactured on or before November 12, 2014 that you acquired new from an authorized FCA US, LLC, dealership in California primarily for personal, family or household purposes." Chrysler denies all wrongdoing and liability but says it decided to settle the lawsuit to put an end to the seven-year class action lawsuit. Dodge Dart Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Even though the lawsuit alleges a previous extended warranty failed because replacement clutch components were as defective as the originals, the Dodge Dart settlement provides customers with an extended warranty for one year. However, only one part (slave cylinder) is covered by the one-year extended warranty. "Beginning no later than the first day after the Effective Date, FCA US will extend its warranty, originally applicable to the Class Vehicles, to cover the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair a failed slave cylinder component only, for a period of 12 months from the Effective Date." Chrysler had also previously reimbursed Dart owners for clutch repairs, and the lawsuit says the reimbursements were meaningless because they did nothing to repair the transmissions. But the lawsuit settlement says a Dodge Dart owner may be eligible for reimbursement if they previously paid out-of-pocket to have a failed slave cylinder replaced, if they have not already been reimbursed. A Dodge Dart owner must file a claim for reimbursement and provide supporting documentation within 180 days of the effective date of the clutch lawsuit settlement. The judge must still grant preliminary and final approval to the Dodge Dart clutch lawsuit settlement. According to the settlement, the plaintiff is asking FCA to pay up to $10,000 for his work the past seven years. The attorneys who represent the plaintiff have requested $1,690,000 for fees and expenses. The Dodge Dart class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California: Carlos Victorino v. FCA US, LLC. The plaintiff is represented by Capstone Law APC, and Kiesel Law LLP. [GN] FLUIDIGM CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2nd Amended Kong Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KWOK KONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, and REENA SAINT JERMAIN, Plaintiff v. FLUIDIGM CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-15396 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint. In this putative class action, Plaintiff-Appellant Kong brings securities fraud claims against a lab equipment manufacturer and two of its executive officers based on several financial projections made to investors throughout fiscal year 2019. In the operative SAC, Kong alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, which prohibit material misrepresentations or omissions in relation to the purchase or sale of corporate securities. The district court dismissed the SAC, finding that the Appellees' challenged statements were not materially misleading, and that Kong failed to plead a strong inference of scienter. Defendant-Appellee Fluidigm manufactures microfluidics and mass cytometry equipment. Its mass cytometry enterprise expanded between 2018 and 2019, and its stock price nearly doubled during this timeframe. However, Fluidigm's mass cytometry sales declined sharply during the second half of 2019, resulting in a substantial drop in the company's stock price. According to the SAC, Fluidigm and its top executives received internal reports in October and November 2018 projecting that this decline would occur. Kong alleges that Fluidigm CEO Christopher Linthwaite and CFO Vikram Jog (the "Individual Defendants") concealed these projections and made several statements on quarterly revenue calls that misled investors to believe that the company's mass cytometry pipeline would remain profitable and continue to grow. The Ninth Circuit notes that Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 proscribes the use of any manipulative or deceptive device in violation of such rules and regulations as the Securities and Exchange Commission may prescribe. Implementing this directive, it says, SEC Rule 10b-5 prohibits material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. To state a claim under these provisions, a securities fraud plaintiff must allege, as relevant in the instant case, a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant, and scienter. The Ninth Circuit holds that Kong's claim falls short at the first hurdle, as none of the statements challenged in the SAC constitute material misrepresentations or omissions that may sustain a securities fraud claim. Accordingly, it affirms on the first issue and need not reach the question of scienter. First, Kong challenges revenue and growth forecasts that are shielded by the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-5. The PSLRA's safe harbor provision exempts from liability forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. The Ninth Circuit says many of the statements at issue are classic growth and revenue projections, which are forward-looking on their face. Second, while some statements fall outside the safe harbor, most constitute puffery that is not actionable as a matter of law. Ordinarily, vague statements of optimism like good, well-regarded, or other feel-good monikers, are not actionable because professional investors, and most amateur investors as well, know how to devalue the optimism of corporate executives. The Ninth Circuit finds that throughout Q1 and Q2 2019, the Individual Defendants lauded Fluidigm's mass cytometry enterprise. These generalized, optimistic remarks are precisely the kind of "feel good monikers" that the Court has characterized as puffery. Third, and finally, Kong challenges a few present-tense statements involving trends in the mass cytometry market. A statement may be misleading if it omits a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The Ninth Circuit finds that the Individual Defendants made several concrete statements about trends in the market and the competitive landscape. However, they did not conceal "real-time financial information" indicating that the market was deteriorating -- rather, Fluidigm was experiencing record growth at the time they made these comments. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit holds that their statements were not materially misleading when made. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/64hy6pdz from Leagle.com. FOOT LOCKER: Asis Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JED ASIS and JUSTIN WATSON, on behalf of themselves and all current and former non-exempt employees, Plaintiffs v. FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2023-627, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 27, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00193 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Defendant violated the California Labor Code wage and hour laws and the California Business and Professions Code. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. is an American sportswear and footwear retailer.[BN] Defendant Foot Locker Retail, Inc. is represented by: Jason M. Richardson, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: jmrichardson@shb.com FOUR SIGMA: Gutierrez Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled NORA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUR SIGMA FOODS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV01486, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01421 to the proceeding. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant disseminates the communications of those who use the chat feature on its website with third parties, and that Defendant does not obtain consent. The complaint asserts a cause of action against Defendants for supposed violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Four Sigma Foods Inc. is a retail, fitness, and health and nutrition company located in Santa Monica, California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: William P. Cole, Esq. Matthew R. Orr, Esq. Richard L. Hyde, Esq. AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN, LLP 515 South Flower St., 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 933-2330 Facsimile: (312) 884-7352 E-mail: william@amintalati.com matt@amintalati.com richard@amintalati.com FRINGE BENEFIT: 5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Austin R. Ramsey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that companies providing administrative services to workplace benefit plans fear a federal appeals court in Louisiana may soon greenlight "mega-class" lawsuits that leave them vulnerable to possible civil litigation from nearly all their clients. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments in a case brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act that would certify a class of nearly 300,000 workers in 3,300 different plans that use Texas-based Fringe Benefit Services Inc. as their plan provider. Multi-plan ERISA cases that involve thousands of individual plan participants are an alluring new target for plaintiffs attorneys that threaten to upend the market for benefit plan service providers, critics warn. Supersized classes may create too high a cost for third-party partners wary of treading into strict fiduciary territory. "The bigger the class, the bigger the settlement," said Chantel Sheaks, vice president for retirement policy at the US Chamber of Commerce. Plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit claim Fringe acted as a fiduciary to their plans and violated ERISA by directly charging their own health and retirement plan trustees excessive fees that were passed off to workers in the form of higher premiums and lower pension returns. Justices in the case are left to determine whether a district court in Texas erred by certifying a class of plaintiffs that encompass nearly all the employees nationwide whose employers contract with Fringe to provide worker benefits. They'll weigh whether a handful of workers have the constitutional standing to represent thousands of potentially unique circumstances and if broad class certification ran afoul of civil procedure. The US District Court for the Western District of Texas has twice certified a class that covers "all participants in and beneficiaries of employee benefit plans" funded by two trusts that Fringe has established for its clients. Those trusts represent what one Fifth Circuit judge probingly called the "lowest common denominator" during the oral arguments. Different Fees, Different Lawsuits Fringe Benefit Services, like most recordkeeping firms, negotiates different fee arrangements for each of the plans it does business with, meaning the appropriate common nexus would be individual plans, not the trusts by which they're funded, Sheaks said. One set of participants in a single plan couldn't possibly fairly represent the interests of all participants in all plans Fringe services, she added. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said as much late last year when it overruled a lower court's decision to certify a class of all plans that the Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association provides with retirement plan loan services. The court took issue with a lack of concern the district court judge showed in determining the effect different interest rates had on each of the plans potentially involved in the class. "It looks like the circuits may finally be saying, 'Wait a minute, wait a minute, we can't certify a class action this massive,'" said Lynn Dudley, senior vice president for global retirement and compensation policy at the American Benefits Council. "And we think that's the right answer: You can't. We certainly are looking for ways that we can address the sort of inappropriate rise in massive class action suits, because a lot of times, it causes real harm." Large-class proponents say the practice is explicitly authorized under ERISA and that it empowers large numbers of individuals who have only minor damages to pool their resources around a common cause. AARP and consumer legal advocacy group Public Justice both filed briefs in support of the case against TIAA. By aggregating lawsuits, the plaintiffs bar can put defendants in "a much tougher spot," said Nicholas Paston, a Covington & Burling LLP litigator who specializes in class action suits involving ERISA and tax issues. One class that represents all of the health and retirement plans a single company does business with gives lawyers more leeway in negotiating a settlement and can open up more doors for gathering evidence. The risk for even larger plan providers, such as Fidelity Investments Inc. or The Vanguard Group Inc., could be catastrophic, according to Sheaks. The precedent courts set in establishing massive classes could one day see plaintiffs cornering companies that manage assets for tens or even hundreds of thousands of plan participants around the country, she said. "The factual differences are important," Sheaks said. "ERISA was designed to allow a participant to bring suits on behalf of a plan, not on behalf of every plan in the US." [GN] FULTON FINANCIAL: Kress Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- Fulton Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Kress class suit with prejudice on November 2, 2022. On October 15, 2019, a former Fulton Bank teller supervisor, D. Kress, filed a putative collective and class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and other teller supervisors, tellers, and other similar non-exempt employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), D. Kress v. Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-18985. The lawsuit alleged that Fulton Bank did not record or otherwise account for the amount of time D. Kress and putative collective and class members spent conducting branch opening security procedures. The lawsuit alleged that by doing so, Fulton Bank violated: (i) the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and sought back overtime wages for a period of three years, liquidated damages and attorney fees and costs; (ii) the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and sought back overtime wages for a period of six years, treble damages and attorney fees and costs; and (iii) the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and sought back wages for a period of six years, treble damages and attorney fees and costs. The lawsuit also asserted New Jersey common law claims seeking compensatory damages and interest. Fulton Bank and counsel representing plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs' Counsel") reached and executed a formal settlement agreement to resolve this lawsuit. On June 30, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Counsel's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Settlement and Provisional Certification of Settlement Class and Collective and scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement agreement and matters related thereto for November 2, 2022. On November 2, 2022, the Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement and matters related thereto and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. Fulton Financial Corporation is a U.S. regional financial services holding company, headquartered in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. FUSION IND: Seeks More Time to Respond to Garza Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER GARZA, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FUSION INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00336-D (W.D. Okla.), Fusion moves the Court to extend its time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and Supporting Memorandum of Law. The Plaintiff Garza filed his oversized Rule 23 Motion on February 6, 2023. The Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Rule 23 Motion is due on or before February 27, 2023. Due to the conflicting trial schedule and the related trial preparation in the preceding weeks, counsel for Defendant have been unable to dedicate the time required to properly respond. Thus, Defendant requests an additional 14 days or until March 13, 2023, to Respond to Plaintiff's Rule 23 Motion. Fusion specializes in the design and construction of power, utilities, generation, substations, automation, and facility construction. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3STKI00 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Leif E. Swedlow, Esq. Terry Stokes, Esq. Alex M. Sharp, Esq. RUBENSTEIN & PITTS, P.L.L.C. 1503 E. 19th Street Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 340-1900 Facsimile: (405) 340-1001 E-mail: lswedlow@oklawpartners.com tstokes@oklawpartners.com asharp@oklawpartners.com GEICO GENERAL: Status Report Submission Extended to March 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND WILLIAMS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland Corporation, CCC INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05823-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order extending deadline to submit joint status report to March 21, 2023. On July 29, 2021, the Court entered an Order staying this matter and ordering the Parties to provide the Court with a joint written status report and proposed case schedule within ten days after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate in Lundquist v. First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Am. On February 11, 2022, the Ninth Circuit filed its opinion in Lara affirming Judge Bryan's denial of class certification in Lundquist v. First Nat'l Insurance Co. of Am., Case No. 3:18-cv-05301-RJB. Lara, Dkt. No. 86; Lara v. First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Am., 25 F.4th 1134 (9th Cir. 2022). On March 28, 2022, the plaintiffs-appellants in Lara petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Lara. On May 10, 2022, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in Lara. Lara. On June 7, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate in Lara. Geico General operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KOtsqF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Robert B. Carey, Esq. John M. DeStefano, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com rob@hbsslaw.com johnd@hbsslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 583-8888 Facsimile: (206) 583-8500 E-mail: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com - and - Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq. Jason R. Burt, Esq. Steven J. Pacini, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 11th Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: marguerite.sullivan@lw.com jason.burt@lw.com steven.pacini@lw.com - and - Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Brian J. Hembd, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 N Central Ave., Suite1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 - and - Vanessa S. Power, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bid to Extend Pre-Trial Dates Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONRAD RELOJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01751-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Berg entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part joint motion to extend pre-trial dates, and 2. issuing fourth amended scheduling order regulating discovery and other pretrial proceedings. Additionally, the parties argue a continuance may allow the parties to have the benefit of rulings on Plaintiff's Motion for conditional collective action certification and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, they request the Court modify the operative Scheduling Order by extending all case deadlines two months, with a final Pretrial Conference date of March 29, 2024. The Court held a telephonic Status Conference on February 21, 2023, to discuss scheduling in this case. 1. All fact discovery shall be completed August 22, 2023 by all parties on or before 2. All interrogatories, requests for February 21, 2023 admission, and document production requests must be served by: 3. The Parties shall designate their May 22, 2023 respective experts in writing no 4. The date for exchange of rebuttal June 6, 2023 experts shall be no later than: 5. Each party shall comply with July 10, 2023 Rule 26(a)(2)(A) 18 and (B) disclosure provisions no later than: 6. The parties shall supplement their July 24, 2023 disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Rule 26(a)(2)(D) no later than: 7. All expert discovery shall be Aug. 22, 2023. completed by all parties no later than: 8. Any motion for class Aug. 22, 2023 certification must be filed on or before: 9. A Mandatory Settlement Conference Dec. 13, 2023 shall be conducted on: 10. Counsel shall comply with Rule Dec. 29, 2023, 26(a)(3) 5 pre-trial disclosure requirements no later than: 11. Counsel shall meet and take the Jan. 8, 2024 action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) with a view to enter into stipulations and agreements to simplify issues for trial no later than: 12. The plaintiff's counsel must Jan. 12, 2024, provide opposing counsel with the draft proposed final pretrial order for review and approval no later than: Government Employees provides insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J5qgG8 at no extra charge.[CC] GRAY LAYTON: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Griffing Suit Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN GRIFFING, Plaintiff v. GRAY, LAYTON, KERSH, SOLOMON, FURR & SMITH, P.A., Defendant v. JOHN GRIFFING, Counterclaim Defendant, Case No. COA22-576 (N.C. App.), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina vacates the trial court's order denying with prejudice the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Gray Layton appeals from the trial court's order denying with prejudice its motion to compel arbitration. Griffing joined Gray Layton as a shareholder on or about 6 March 2000. The shareholder agreement did not contain an arbitration clause. Together with its offer to join the firm, Gray Layton offered the Plaintiff the option to buy into COBRA Properties, L.L.P., the entity from which Gray Layton leased office space. On April 20, 2001, the Plaintiff bought into COBRA Properties, and in August 2018, he purchased an additional interest in the partnership. Under the lease agreement between COBRA Properties and Gray Layton, the office rent was scheduled to increase by three percent annually. The lease agreement did not contain an arbitration clause. Pursuant to the COBRA Properties partnership agreement, its members receive prorated shares of the rental income. The agreement further provides that any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the Agreement, or the breach thereof, will be settled, if allowed by law, by arbitration. In 2012, the shareholders of Gray Layton decided to accept a large class action case on a contingent fee basis. The Gray Layton shareholders entered into an agreement with two associates regarding the class action lawsuit, pursuant to which the individual shareholders in Gray Layton agreed to pay the expenses and overhead for the class action litigation. In addition, the associates agreed to devote a substantial amount of time and attention to the lawsuit in exchange for each receiving ten percent of the gross attorney's fees. Seventy percent of the gross fees were to be "divided in shares among the undersigned 'Participating Attorneys'; the Plaintiff signed the agreement as one such "participating attorney." The agreement also provided that the parties agree to submit their dispute(s) to binding arbitration to be conducted in Gastonia, NC. On Oct. 31, 2019, the Plaintiff left Gray Layton as a result of the financial burden of "carrying his overhead for his profit center" and paying for firm overhead to the other shareholders. On Oct. 25, 2021, he filed a complaint in Gaston County Superior Court against Gray Layton, alleging breach of contract and failure to provide him with a shareholder accounting or to allow him to inspect Gray Layton's books and records. Concerning the breach of contract claim, the Plaintiff asserted that Gray Layton violated the shareholder agreements as well as other side agreements by failing to: (1) buy back his stock in Gray Layton within 60 days of his departure from the firm; (2) buy back his stock at the agreed upon price; (3) adequately compensate the Plaintiff for the revenue stream he brought into the firm; (4) properly allocate overhead against the cost centers that used the services provided by the entire firm; (5) pay the COBRA Properties partners the 3% rent increases as required by the lease between Gray Layton and COBRA Properties; and (6) reimburse the Plaintiff for the expenses that he advanced for the class action lawsuit. On Jan. 10, 2022, Gray Layton filed its answer, generally denying the allegations of the Plaintiff's complaint and advancing several affirmative defenses. Gray Layton also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and conversion. On Jan. 14, 2022, Gray Layton filed a motion to compel arbitration. The motion came on for hearing in Gaston County Superior Court on Feb. 21, 2022. In an order entered on Feb. 24, 2022, the trial court denied Gray Layton's motion with prejudice, concluding that the matter is not subject to arbitration. Gray Layton timely appealed. On appeal, Gray Layton asserts that the trial court erred by denying its motion to compel arbitration because (1) the Plaintiff's claims are subject to multiple, valid arbitration agreements; and (2) the Plaintiff's claims are within the scope of those agreements, thereby requiring that the claims be submitted to arbitration. It also contends that it was improper for the trial court not to include findings of fact in its order, and that is sufficient reason to remand the case. The Court of Appeals opines that the trial court's denial of Gray Layton's motion might have resulted from: (1) a lack of privity between the parties; (2) a lack of a binding arbitration agreement; (3) a determination that this specific dispute does not fall within the scope of any arbitration agreement; or (4) any other reason. But without any findings, it says it is unable to determine the basis for the trial court's judgment. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals must remand to the trial court for entry of a new order that contains findings of fact which sustain its determination regarding the validity and applicability of the arbitration provisions of the parties' various agreements, and evidence the basis of that determination. On remand, the trial court may hear evidence and further argument to the extent it determines in its discretion that either or both may be necessary and appropriate. In light of its disposition of this issue, the Court of Appeals need not address Gray Layton's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacates and remands to the trial court for entry of an order containing findings of fact which sustain its determination regarding the validity and applicability of the arbitration provisions of the parties' various agreements, and evidence the basis of that determination. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p97zsk2 from Leagle.com. Amanda C. Dure -- adure@pangialaw.com -- and Joseph L. Anderson -- janderson@pangialaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee John Griffing. Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., by Edward B. Davis -- ward.davis@belldavispitt.com -- and Kevin J. Roak -- kroak@belldavispitt.com -- for Defendant-Appellant Gray, Layton, Kersh, Solomon, Furr & Smith, P.A. GREG REECE'S: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greg Reece's Rare Comics, LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Greg Reece's Rare Comics, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01789 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Greg Reece's Rare Comics, LLC -- https://reececomics.com/ -- specialize in buying, selling, and trading rare comics from the Golden, Silver, and Bronze Ages.[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 HARBOR FREIGHT: Court Places Comes Suit in Inactive Status ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mel Comes, et al., v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-05451-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order placing Comes Suit in inactive status in light of the parties' notice of settlement, indicating that the case has settled in its entirety and that the parties are finalizing their written settlement agreement. By March 27, 2023, the parties shall file either (1) a stipulation and proposed order for dismissal of the action or judgment, or (2) a motion to reopen if settlement has not been consummated. Upon the failure to timely comply with this Order, this action shall be deemed dismissed as of March 28, 2023. This Court retains full jurisdiction over this action and this Order shall not prejudice any party to this action. Plaintiffs Markeith Mitchell and Mel Comes' Motion to Certify Class, Plaintiff Duane Thomas' Motion to Certify Class, and Defendant's Motion of Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. to Exclude Testimony of Philip J. O'Keefe are denied as moot. All scheduled dates and deadlines are hereby vacated. Harbor Freight is a privately held tool and equipment retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California, United States. It operates a chain of retail stores, as well as an e-commerce business. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZjsHdW at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH FIRST: Powers Sues Over Unlawful Monopolization ------------------------------------------------------ Laura Powers, Christina Rosean, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375 (M.D. Fla., March 1, 2023), is brought arising from the pervasive and long-term exclusionary misconduct that Health First has committed in the market for acute care and that this Court has already scrutinized and for Health First's monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act. In Omni Healthcare Inc. v. Health First, No. 6:13-cv-1509, physician competitors of Health First sought to recover profits lost due to Health First's anticompetitive conduct. After one day of trial, on August 16, 2016, Health First agreed to settle and the case was voluntarily dismissed. This matter is also related to Colucci et al. v. Health First, Inc. No. 6:21-CV-00681, where this Court determined the proposed class representatives did not have standing to assert class claims in the relevant market as alleged. The individual remaining, non-class claims of those plaintiffs have been, or are being, dismissed, and these plaintiffs do not bring this matter. Unfortunately, Health First was unchastened. After the Omni Healthcare settlement, Health First continued its efforts to maintain and strengthen a monopoly in the market for acute care, and restrained trade, in violation of the Sherman Act. Health First achieves these anticompetitive ends through exclusionary acts suppressing and injuring competition in the Brevard County relevant market for the sale of inpatient, emergency room, and outpatient hospital acute care, including in part acquiring the largest competing physician group, Melbourne Internal Medical Associates; leveraging its market power in adjacent markets into the acute care relevant market; pervasive and highly effective exclusionary conduct in hospital referrals; and conspiring with AdventistHealth ("Adventist") to protect its entrenched monopoly in the relevant market from competition, and otherwise restrain trade. The Plaintiffs seek damages for Health First's above-competitive fees charged in the BC or SBC relevant product market for the sale of acute care by Health First monopoly hospitals provided on an inpatient, emergency room, or outpatient basis. The Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to bring Health First's long history of exclusionary conduct to an end, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have health plans with the Defendants. Health First is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing since 1995 under Florida law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tucker H. Byrd, Esq. BYRD CAMPBELL, P.A. 180 Park Avenue North, Ste 2A Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 392-2285 Facsimile: (407)392-2286 Email: TByrd@ByrdCampbell.com - and - R. Stephen Berry, Esq. BERRY LAW PLLC 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 645 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 296-1212 Email: sberry@berrylawpllc.com - and - Ronald G. Meyer, Esq. MEYER, BLOHM AND POWELL, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Phone: (850) 878-5212 Email: rmeyer@meyerblohmlaw.com HELEN OF TROY: Appeals Remand Order in Rowland Suit to 3rd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- HELEN OF TROY LTD is taking an appeal from a court order granting a plaintiff's Motion to Remand the lawsuit entitled Cara Rowland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Helen of Troy Ltd, Defendant, Case No. 2-22-cv-01495, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, to the Western District of Pennsylvania, is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. On Nov. 23, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Cathy Bissoon on Feb. 14, 2023. The Court found the Defendant's arguments to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was denied as moot without prejudice because the Court is remanding the suit to Allegheny County. The appellate case is captioned Cara Rowland v. Helen of Troy Ltd, Case No. 23-8011, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 24, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent CARA ROWLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 (724) 714-3095 (717) 491-9162 (412) 222-5740 - and - Kenneth A. Held, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (716) 341-2397 (412) 322-9243 Defendant-Petitioner HELEN OF TROY LTD is represented by: Jennifer S. Coatsworth, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 170 South Independence Mall West The Curtis Center, Suite 400E Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 931-5836 - and - Kyle T. McGee, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 535 Smithfield Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 281-4256 HILTON GRAND: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01646-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023) is a class-action lawsuit challenging Defendant's discriminatory business practices as its website, www.hiltongrandvacations.com, contained access barriers that prevented Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally blind individuals from purchasing products thereon, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to Defendant's website as a result of the existence of these access barriers. By failing to make the website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act was meant to redress, says the suit. 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. Hilton Grand Vacations Inc. operates the Hilton Grand online timeshare vacation resort sales business throughout the United States, as well as at its physical locations throughout New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal HOME DEPOT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 18 ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY COLLINS v. HOME DEPOT USA, Case No. 8:22-cv-00847-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All discovery, including discovery February 15, 2024 motions, shall be completed by: 2. The parties shall have until April 15, 2024 to file and have heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend the pleadings: 3. A pretrial conference will be held June 17, 2024 on: 4. The parties shall have until February 29, 2024 to conduct settlement proceedings: 5. The Plaintiff shall have until September 18, 2023 to file and have heard any class certification motion. Home Depot operates home improvement retail stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41KfZ9r at no extra charge.[CC] HOMELAND SECURITY: Oldaker Allowed to File Consolidated Reply Brief ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, YANIRA YESENIA OLDAKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. THOMAS P. GILES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-224 (WLS) (M.D. Ga.), Judge W. Louis Sands, Sr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division: a. grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to File Consolidated Response Brief; and b. overrules Defendants Irwin County Detention Center, LaSalle Southeast LLC and David Paulk's response in opposition. Before the Court is the Motion to File Consolidated Response Brief filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs in which they request permission to file one response (limited to 90 pages) to the seven motions to dismiss filed by the various Defendants. Pursuant to the Court's Order entered Feb. 20, 2023, the Objecting Defendants filed a response in opposition stating the bases of their objections to the Motion, and the Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Objection. The Plaintiffs contend that a consolidated brief will be more efficient because several of the Defendants' motions to dismiss raise the same or similar arguments and a consolidated brief will prevent duplicative filings. The Objecting Defendants point out that they have each argued that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint fails to adequately set out claims against each Defendant and that it provides only "shotgun pleading allegations." They also contend that a combined brief will prejudice all the Defendants because it will be confusing, will allow the Plaintiffs to continue to confuse and conflate claims against all the Defendants, creates uneven briefing parameters, and will require the Defendants to wade through and respond to ninety pages of argument to determine which pages are intended to refer to each individual Defendant. The Objecting Defendants further contend that they have each argued that class certification is improper because each Plaintiff's claims against the various Defendants is too distinct and that the individual issues control over the general arguments. This statement is inconsistent with the Objecting Defendants' statement that Plaintiffs do not adequately set out claims against each Defendant. The Plaintiffs also state that the consolidated brief will include a detailed appendix to ensure that the Court and each Defendant is able to identify which portions of the consolidated brief address the arguments raised in each motion to dismiss. Judge Sands notes that the Objecting Defendants' motions to dismiss, and in particular, the motions of LaSalle Southeast LLC and David Paulk, contain substantially the same arguments and quotations. Based on the foregoing, he finds that the Plaintiffs' Motion is well-taken. Accordingly, Judge Sands grants the Plaintiffs' Motion and overruled the Objecting Defendants' Objection. The Plaintiffs' will be permitted to file a single consolidated brief of no more than ninety pages in response to the seven motions to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/55f6x5v2 from Leagle.com. HONDA MOTOR: Clay Barnett Appointed as Lead Counsel in Engine Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ beasleyallen.com reports that owners of Honda and Acura vehicles and those leasing them are suing the company because of a problem with Honda's Idle-Stop System. It is a defect the customers say Honda knew about but did nothing to make work. The defect causes the vehicles' engines to turn off under certain conditions and won't allow the engine to restart. The vehicle is stalled and unable to move, increasing the risk of injury. It is what happened to our client Hamid Bolooki who filed a class action last June in California federal court. On Feb. 21, Judge Mark C. Scarsi, who is overseeing the class action against Honda, appointed Clay Barnett as interim co-lead counsel to help guide the litigation process for the plaintiffs. Class plaintiffs include those who own or lease 2016-2020 Honda Pilots, Odysseys, Acura TLXs and Acura MDXs with the faulty Idle-Stop feature. Clay is based out of our Atlanta office and works in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, where he specializes in automotive defect class actions nationwide. Clay has developed solid mechanical skills through many years of hands-on vehicle and vessel restoration, and nearly a decade of amateur road course racing in a racecar he maintains. This unique perspective and knowledge help Clay quickly identify defects and prosecute product defect class actions in a way few others can in this area of law. He has developed defect theories for numerous automotive class actions to benefit our clients and other plaintiffs in class actions against Ford, General Motors (GM), Toyota, Nissan and Volkswagen, to name a few. In October 2022, Clay co-led the trial team that secured a $102.6 million verdict against GM. GM had produced engines with defective piston rings, causing heavy oil consumption, engine wear and tear, increased safety risks and reduced vehicle value. Our firm has the experience and resources to represent clients nationwide in automotive defect class actions while never losing sight of the individual. More about the Honda Idle-Stop Defect and Class Action Litigation The Problem The Idle-Stop feature in the affected Honda models often fails to restart the engine when the driver releases the brake, causing the unexpected stranding events. Drivers have experienced engine restart failure in dangerous situations, including when merging into fast-moving traffic and navigating busy intersections. The affected vehicles include 2016-2020 Honda Pilots, Odysseys, Acura TLXs and Acura MDXs. What is the Idle-Stop System? The Honda Idle-Stop System is a fuel-saving feature. It turns off the vehicle's gasoline engine when the computer detects that the vehicle is stopped and idling in gear, such as at a stop light or in a line of traffic. When working correctly, the Idle-Stop feature restarts the engine as the driver releases the brake pedal, allowing the vehicle to move again. Honda Idle-Stop Class Action Consumers who own or lease vehicles with the defective feature began filing complaints with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2015. They described the dangers caused by the flawed part. They also claim that Honda knew about the problem but did nothing to fix the defect. In service records and messages to dealerships, Honda admitted that the feature was defective. Yet, it continued selling vehicles without telling customers about the defect. It also failed to recall vehicles with the dangerous defect. We filed the class action in June 2022 in the U.S. District Court of California's Central District, alleging: -- Those who purchased or leased the affected vehicles did not know they were paying for a vehicle with a significant and dangerous defect. -- Honda violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Acts. -- Honda committed breach of warranty and fraudulent concealment/omission and was unjustly enriched by selling and leasing the dangerous defective class vehicles. -- Our client, Mr. Hamid Bolooki, seeks to represent a nationwide class and Florida subclass of consumers who purchased or leased a Honda vehicle affected by the Idle-Stop defect.[GN] HUB CYBER: Faces Securities Class Action in Tel Aviv Court ---------------------------------------------------------- On March 6, 2023, a request was sent to HUB Cyber Security Ltd. (the "Company") for approval of a class action which was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court - the Economic Department against the Company and its officers and directors ("request for approval" and "defendants", respectively). The subject of the request for approval, according to what is claimed in it, is that over a period of time from March 2022 until February 2023 the Company published immediate reports in Israel to the Israel Securities Authority and the securities exchanges in Israel, that it had received an irrevocable investment commitments of $50 million in a PIPE financing (the "PIPE Financing") that was to be consummated simultaneously with the closing of the Company's business combination with Mount Rainier Acquisition Corp ("Mount Rainier"). The reason for which the request for approval was submitted is an alleged violation of the provisions of Israeli securities laws about disclosure and violations of the duties of care and negligence of the office-holders of the Company in representing to investors that they did indeed have a commitment from investors to complete the PIPE Financing and that the PIPE Financing ultimately failed to fund at the closing of the business combination at the published pro forma value of $1.28 billion. The group that the applicant seeks to represent in the request for approval includes all those who purchased shares of the Company from March 23, 2022, the date that the Company announced the proposed business combination with Mount Rainier, through February 23, 2023, the last day of trading of the Company on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The assessment of the claimed damage as part of the approval request is NIS 91.24 million. As of the date of this report, the Company is still examining the claim and therefore, at this stage, is unable to assess the chances of the claim being approved as a class action and/or its scope, and if approved, whether it will have a material impact on the Company's results of operations or financial condition. [GN] HUBBARD RADIO: Duplantis Withdraws Class Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- InsideRadio reports that Duplantis withdrew her suit less than three weeks after Hubbard asked the court to toss the complaint arguing that Duplantis' amended complaint lacks "personal jurisdiction" over Hubbard, since the company is neither "at home" in Maryland, where the suit was filed, nor has it had any case-related contacts with the state that would be legally sufficient to try it in court there. A federal court has dismissed a consumer digital privacy lawsuit filed against Hubbard Radio after the plaintiff asked to withdraw the complaint. Toni Duplantis filed to voluntarily dismiss her class action against Hubbard and its Washington DC all-news station WTOP (103.5) "with prejudice" meaning she cannot refile the same claim again in that court. Filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland, the suit claimed Hubbard violated the federal Video Privacy Protections Act for allegedly sharing sensitive information with Facebook about digital subscribers to WTOP's website. It sought class action status on behalf of "hundreds of thousands of other WTOP News digital subscribers." The law in question dates back to 1988 and was intended to protect the privacy of individuals' and their families' video rental, purchase and viewing data. The lawsuit claimed Hubbard profited from this practice at the expense of its digital subscribers' privacy and their statutory rights under the VPPA. It sought a $2,500 payment to the plaintiff and each class member, along with punitive damages to be determined at a trial along with prejudgment interest and legal costs. According to the complaint, WTOP knowingly discloses its subscribers' personally identifiable info to Facebook, including a record of every video clip they view, without first getting their consent in the form of a standalone consent form that complies with the VPAA's statutory requirements. In its Motion to Dismiss, Hubbard argued that it is not in the business of renting, selling, or delivering pre-recoded video cassettes or similar audio-visual materials to which the VPAA narrowly applies. Rather, WTOP is a news organization and its use of short form video materials to supplement some of its online news articles isn't sufficient to "transform it into the equivalent of an online video store” that would subject it to that law. "To hold otherwise would mean that every website with video content is 'in the business' of renting video tapes and can be sued under VPPA," Hubbard's filing says. "No one in the VPPA's 35-year history has interpreted the statute to apply so broadly." To bolster its argument, Hubbard referenced a recent U.S. court ruling that took the position that the VPPA "does not apply to news organizations, advocacy groups, or other entities whose mission is to publicize information of public import." Hubbard also contends that Duplantis signing up for WTOP's free email news alerts and watching free video content on its website doesn't make her a "consumer" under the VPAA. Thirdly, the lawsuit establishes that when Duplantis visited WTOP’s website, her own browser, not that of Hubbard, transmitted her Facebook ID to Facebook. Besides, even if Duplantis could allege that Hubbard sent her FID to Facebook, she hasn't established that Hubbard did so knowing that Facebook could use that info to identify her. "In sum, the VPPA's plain terms dictate its limited scope and undermine Plaintiff's attempt to cash-in on her free use of WTOP's website just because it happens to contain video content," Hubbard says in the Motion. "The Court should dismiss Plaintiff's VPPA claim." Now that Duplantis has withdrawn her complaint, the court has denied Hubbard's Motion To Dismiss "as moot." [GN] HV GLOBAL: Ramirez Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. HV GLOBAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-09955-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Ramirez applies ex parte for an order to continue his deadline to file a motion for class certification from April 7, 2023, to September 15, 2023. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to continue Defendant's deadline to file an Opposition to November 17, 2023, the Plaintiff's deadline to file a Reply to January 19, 2024, and the mediation cut-off date to October 27, 2023. HV Global provides heath and safety solutions for the petrochemical, solar, wind farms and mining industries. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZCmWHM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Tara Zabehi, Esq. Margaux Gundzik, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818)265-1020 Facsimile: (818)265-1021 E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com tara@calljustice.com m.gundzik@calljustice.com HYATT CORP: Court Enters Stipulated Final Judgment in Crump Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTINE CRUMP, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. HYATT CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00295-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California enters the parties' Stipulated Final Judgment. Judge Gilliam, having granted final approval of the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release of Claims as set forth in the Order Granting Motion for Final Approval and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Attorneys' Fees, enters the Judgement. Judge Gilliam enters judgment in the action for Crump and the 15,774 Settlement Class Members as defined in the Settlement Agreement and in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Final Approval Order. The Settlement Agreement, Final Approval Order, and the Judgment binds Crump and all the 15,774 Settlement Class Members who did not timely submit a Request for Exclusion from the Settlement. Crump and all the 15,774 Settlement Class Members are permanently enjoined from pursuing or seeking to reopen claims that have been released by the Settlement Agreement and Final Approval Order. The 96 individuals identified in Exhibit A who submitted a timely Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Agreement are excluded from the Settlement Agreement, Final Approval Order, and the Judgment. The Settlement Agreement, the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Final Approval Order, and the Judgment are not binding on the 96 individuals identified. The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over the enforcement of the Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Stipulated Final Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/3tc22etb from Leagle.com. R. Rex Parris -- rrparris@parrislawyers.com -- Alexander R. Wheeler -- awheeler@parrislawyers.com -- Kitty K. Szeto -- kszeto@parrislawyers.com -- Ryan A. Crist -- rcrist@parrislawyers.com -- PARRIS LAW FIRM, Lancaster, California, Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Brian P. Long -- bplong@seyfarth.com -- Los Angeles, California, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Michael Afar -- mafar@seyfarth.com -- Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant HYATT CORPORATION. INTELSAT SA: Class Action Motion Sets for Hearing on April 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Forrester of Advanced Television reports that "Any reasonable person - and juror - would believe that there was insider trading" states a motion from lawyers for the Class Action against some Intelsat shareholders and the company chairman, Dave McGlade, provided their detailed claim for the Northern District of California Court. Their action is due to be heard on April 28th. The Action argues that the defendants in the case sold shares worth $246 million and thus avoid $185 million in losses but "innocent investors were left [with nothing]". The Action states each of the named defendants "owed a fiduciary duty to Intelsat shareholders." The Action cites precedence and states: "Indeed, investors do not expect the playing field to be level, but they do expect that those who 'have special access to information, because of employment or other relationships, should be barred from using that information to gain an advantage over the rest of us." The events that lead up to the claim state that on the morning of November 5th 2019 a meeting took place with Intelsat's CEO Steve Spengler at the FCC to discuss Intelsat's (and SES) C-band proposal for a private auction of some of the satellite companies C-band assets over the US. At the meeting, however, the FCC reversed course, making "a complete 180" reversal and the Intelsat visitors were told that the FCC would handle its own auction of the C-band frequencies. "Statements from highly placed senior 'Confidential Witnesses' and from testimony in Intelsat's bankruptcy proceeding confirm that the November 5 Meeting had gone terribly," says the Class Action lawyers. A few hours later, and on the same day, "high-profile Intelsat insiders -- including (i) Intelsat's Chairman of the Board [McGlade], (ii) BC Partners, Intelsat's largest shareholder (which was represented on the Board by two directors), and (iii) Silver Lake (another major investor with special information rights) -- sold a whopping $246 million in stock through a rushed overnight fire sale, with absolutely no prior approval or oversight from the Board, and no advanced warning that the sale was coming," states the Action's claim to the court. The Class Action states: "On these facts, circumstances, and timeline alone, an appropriate analysis would lead any reasonable person and juror to believe that there was insider trading. Indeed, the above facts -- which are undisputed -- indicate that when weighing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiff it is 'at least as likely' than not that Defendants in this action committed insider trading." "The above undisputed facts demonstrate an overwhelming likelihood that Defendants traded while in possession of material non-public information," argues the Claim. The Class Action quotes from three 'Confidential Witnesses', one an extremely VP-level senior employee of Intelsat, and another a "senior executive" of the C-Band Alliance, corroborated the events, the time-line and how Intelsat reacted. "On the afternoon and evening, just after this pivotal [FCC] meeting, Defendant McGlade (as Board Chairman) and Intelsat's largest two shareholders executed a massive $246 million sale of Intelsat stock at a steep 6.6 percent discount to the market price. As the New York Post would later write in a March 4, 2020 article entitled 'Intelsat's biggest investors sold shares just before massive stock plunge,' Morgan Stanley brokered the deal with 'no advance warning that the sale was coming, and interested buyers were told they had an hour or so to decide," states the claim to the Court. [GN] INTERFACE INC: Continues to Defend Swanson Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Interface Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending January 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Swanson federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On November 12, 2020, the Company, its former president and chief executive officer, and its current chief financial officer and chairman were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Swanson v. Interface, Inc. et al. (case :120-cv-05518). The lawsuit is a federal securities law putative class action that alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. The specific allegations relate to the subject matter of the concluded SEC investigation described above. The complaint does not quantify the damages sought. The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff, which filed an Amended Complaint that, among other things, added the Company's former chief financial officer as a defendant. As in the original complaint, the allegations in the Amended Complaint relate to the subject matter of the concluded SEC investigation described above. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and that motion was denied by the Court on June 6, 2022. The Company filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint on July 21, 2022. Discovery in the case is proceeding. The Company believes the putative class action is without merit and that the Company has good defenses to it. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the action. Interface is a global manufacturer of commercial flooring with an integrated collection of carpet tiles and resilient flooring, including luxury vinyl tiles and nora brand rubber flooring. IQVIA INC: Lyngaas Must File Class Cert Reply Brief by March 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02370-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to file a reply and for an extension of time to file a response. Accordingly, by no later than March 15, 2023, the Plaintiff may file (1) a reply brief in support of his motion for class certification, and (2) a response to Defendant's motion to exclude certain opinions of Plaintiff's expert. IQVIA is an American multinational company serving the combined industries of health information technology and clinical research. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3muB8od at no extra charge.[CC] JAHO HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over 10% Wellness Fee ----------------------------------------------------- Julie Manganis of The Salem News reports that a suit, filed March 2, 2023 in Salem Superior Court, accuses the company of consumer fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of contract, calling the fee a "stealth surcharge" that was not listed on signs or menus or at the point of sale. The suit names Jaho Holdings, Jaho Inc., Jaho Loring and Jaho Roasters as defendants. It was filed by Yasi and Yasi, a Salem law firm that has handled a number of consumer class-action lawsuits, on behalf of a Swampscott man, Paul Moran. Moran's lawyers say he ordered and paid for several items at Jaho's Canal Street location last October, then later looked at his receipt and noticed the fee. Jaho owner Anil Mezini said March 3, 2023 he was not aware of the lawsuit but said the fees were removed last year. Mezini said increased costs led to what he says was a temporary surcharge in lieu of raising prices. "We weren't the only ones to add a COVID-related fee for that time period," Mezini said. He said the decision not to simply increase prices was based on the idea that once prices are raised they stay higher, as opposed to simply removing the fee. "We hoped it was going to be temporary and it was," Mezini said. Moran, meanwhile, has had previous success in pursuing class actions over consumer pricing -- in 2017 he filed a class-action lawsuit against a dozen Dunkin' Donuts franchise owners across the North Shore over being served margarine with his bagel when he'd paid a 25-cent surcharge for butter. That case was settled the following year; the deal included 600 vouchers for other affected customers and a $2,000 payment to Moran. Courts reporter Julie Manganis can be reached at 978-338-2521, by email at jmanganis@salemnews.com or on Twitter at @SNJulieManganis [GN] JERR SHOES INC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jerr Shoes, Inc. The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jerr Shoes, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01588 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jerr Shoes, Inc. doing business as Harry's Shoes -- https://harrys-shoes.com/ -- is a long-standing store stocking American & European brand comfort shoes, outerwear & accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com KDM ANCHOR: Joint Stipulation for Conditional Collective Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOPHIA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. KDM ANCHOR, INC. d/b/a ANCHOR, Case No. 3:22-cv-00565-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Parties submit a joint stipulation for conditional collective action class certification and court-authorized notice. 1. The parties have conferred in good faith in an attempt to resolve and reach an agreement on the issues in the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for conditional collective action class certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). 2. As a result of such discussions, the parties have agreed to stipulate to conditional collective action class certification of the putative collective class in an effort to avoid incurring the expense and spending the time that would be required to fully brief a motion for conditional collective action class certification. 3. The Defendant's agreement to this stipulation is in no way a concession on the merits of Plaintiff's claims, and Defendant does not waive any defenses to such claims. Defendant further reserves the right to move to decertify the conditionally certified class at some later point in this litigation and to challenge the propriety of the class description Plaintiff here asserts. 4. The parties have agreed to conditional certification for purposes of this stipulation to following class: "All persons who have been or are employed as servers by KDM Anchor, Inc. d/b/a Anchor, at its Edgerton location, at any time during the past three years and who were subject to a tip pool but were not paid the full minimum wage. 5. The parties agree that Plaintiff's counsel shall reasonably administer the notice process, using the proposed Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit. 6. The Defendant shall provide Plaintiff's counsel with the last known mailing address and e-mail address of each class member within 14 days of this Court's entry of an order conditionally certifying the above class. 7. The Plaintiff's counsel shall send the agreed-upon Notice to the conditionally certified class via U.S. mail and electronic mail within ten (10) days of receipt of the class and address list from Defendant. Consent Forms postmarked or submitted online within 60 days after the mailing of the Notice will be considered timely. KDM Anchor is in the food services, direct sales business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mjGBOB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. Natalie L. Gerloff, Esq. Connor J. Clegg, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Post Office Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com ngerloff@hq-law.com cclegg@hq-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Lori M. Lubinsky, Esq. AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP Madison, WI 53701-1767 Telephone: (608) 257-5661 E-mail: llubinsky@axley.com KNOX COUNTY, TN: Class Certification in Day v. Sheriff Office Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEVEN DAY, et al., Plaintiffs v. KNOX COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-CV-63-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Clifton L. Corker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville: a. disallows class certification and permissive joinder of the Plaintiffs in the action; and b. orders each Plaintiff wishing to proceed in a Section 1983 suit to file an individual complaint and either pay the filing fee or submit the necessary documents to proceed in forma pauperis. The lawsuit is a pro se prisoners' complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 purportedly brought by over two dozen Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have classified their initial complaint as a class action, which the Court construes as a request for class certification. To permit the action to proceed as a class action, the Court must be satisfied that a number of grounds are met, one of which is that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. However, pro se inmates are not able adequately to represent a proposed class. Accordingly, Judge Corker denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Judge Corker otherwise notes that Rule 20(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the permissive joinder of plaintiffs in a single action if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. While the joinder of parties is "strongly encouraged" for purposes of judicial economy and fairness where it is appropriate, courts have recognized that there are significant practical problems with allowing multiple prisoners to file a single complaint. The practical problems posed by multi-Plaintiff prisoner litigation is evident in the case, Judge Corker finds. He notes that the Plaintiff's initial complaint contains only the signatures of Plaintiffs Steven Day, LaShawn L. Johnson, Robert Atkins, Jayland Woods, and James Tyler Porter. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint that was signed only by Plaintiffs Johnson and Eddie Crippen. This complaint completely replaced the original complaint but did not include all the allegations of the original complaint. However, the Plaintiffs did not seek permission to file that amendment. Therefore, not only was the filing submitted without leave of Court, but it was also submitted in contravention of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, most of the Plaintiffs have not verified any of the facts alleged in the initial or amended complaint, and therefore, Judge Corker cannot determine that their claims assert a right to relief with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as required for them to proceed jointly in the matter. Moreover, given the significant practical issues arising out of prisoners filing joint complaints, which is apparent from the filings so far in this case, Judge Corker finds that even if Rule 20(a) permitted joinder of over two dozen Plaintiffs, it would be impractical and inefficient for the Court to allow them to do so in this case. As such, Judge Corker notifies the Plaintiffs that they will not be allowed to proceed jointly in the action. While he may sever the action to allow each Plaintiff to proceed separately, he has several concerns doing so sua sponte, including that a significant portion of the filings in the case are written in the hand of Plaintiff LaShawn Johnson and given the absence of signatures for most of the Plaintiffs, it is not apparent that they all have actually consented to suit. Also, because joinder has been disallowed, each Plaintiff will be solely responsible for the entire filing fee of an individual action. Accordingly, each Plaintiff wishing to proceed in an individual Section 1983 suit will have up to and including 21 days from the date of entry of the Order to file (1) a Section 1983 complaint, signed personally be that Plaintiff, containing a short and plain statement of his or her individual claims, and (2) the filing fee or a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis. Each Plaintiff's Section 1983 complaint must be complete in and of itself and not refer back to any previously filed documents. Each Plaintiff should submit these documents only if he or she wishes to proceed in a Section 1983 action in which they will be the sole Plaintiff. Otherwise, if a Plaintiff does not file both documents by the deadline, the Court will presume that the Plaintiff does not wish to sustain a Section 1983 action, and this matter will be dismissed as to that Plaintiff for failure to prosecute. The Clerk is directed to mail each Plaintiff a Section 1983 form an in forma pauperis application for this purpose. Judge Corker notifies that the Court will not consider any further amendments and/or supplements or any other kind of motion for relief until after the Court has screened each Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the PLRA, which the Court will do as soon as practicable. Accordingly, the Court will automatically deny any requests or motions filed before it has completed this screening. Finally, Judge Corker orders each Plaintiff to immediately inform the Court and the Defendants or their counsel of record of any address changes in writing. Failure to provide a correct address to the Court within 14 days of any change in address may result in the dismissal of the action. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/49ex7dnx from Leagle.com. L'OREAL USA: Burton Mislabeling Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANGELA BURTON; NATASHA M. CASBY; BRIDGETTE QUINN; and SONDRA LOGGINS; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. L'OREAL USA, INC.; L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS, INC.; and SOFTSHEEN-CARSON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-12784, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01162 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves, and all similarly situated consumers who purchased the Hair Straighteners and/or Relaxers that were harmful and defective because they contained known endocrine disrupting chemicals -- that increased the risk of various diseases and illnesses, including cancer -- and which were formulated, designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendants. L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hannah Rodgers Pfeifler, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: hpfeifler@awkolaw.com - and - James White, Esq. 2549 Jolly Road, Suite 340 Okemos, MI 48864 Telephone: (517) 316-1195 Facsimile: (517) 316-1197 E-mail: jameswhite@whitelawpllc.com - and - Jennifer M. Hoekstra, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ 17 E Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: jhoekstra@awkolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John T. Eads, III, Esq. Juliana B. Sabatini Plastiras, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 37000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (313) 426-9815 E-mail: johneads@grsm.com jsabatini@grsm.com - and - Peter George Siachos, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 18 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (646) 808-6358 E-mail: psiachos@grsm.com L'OREAL USA: Gethers Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled Shmeka Gethers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. L'OREAL USA, INC., L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS, INC.; SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC; SOFT SHEEN/CARSON, INC.; and SOFT SHEEN/CARSON (W.I.), INC., "L'OREAL" or "SOFT SHEEN"; STRENGTH OF NATURE GLOBAL, LLC, a/k/a STRENGTH OF NATURE, LLC, and BEAUTY BELL ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a/ HOUSE OF CHEATHAM, INC., Defendants Case No. 1:23-cv-01081, was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01081 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated consumers who purchased the Hair Straighteners and/or Relaxers that were harmful and defective because they contained known endocrine disrupting chemicals -- that increased the risk of various diseases and illnesses, including cancer -- and which were formulated, designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendants. L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Seth Jophlin, Esq. THE JOPHLIN LAW FIRM 219 N Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 970-1820 Facsimile: (843) 970-1818 E-mail: aaron@jophlinlaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP PO Box 2590 Georgetown, SC 29442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 E-mail: gsulpizio@edbelllaw.com - and - James Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 N Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Amy Elizabeth McLaren, Esq. Kerry K. Jardine, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 40 Calhoun Street, Suite 350 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 278-5900 E-mail: amclaren@grsm.com kjardine@grsm.com - and - Peter George Siachos, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 18 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (646) 808-6358 E-mail: psiachos@grsm.com L.L. BEAN: Class-Action Lawsuit Targets Mislabeled Women's Boots ---------------------------------------------------------------- wmtw.com reports that Maine's most iconic brand is being sued over advertising that claims their boots are waterproof. And no, the lawsuit isn't targeting the "rubber moc" duck boots the brand is famous for. Linda Lenzi of Rochester, New York, filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court over claims that the Women's Storm Chaser Boots, with a zipper closure, are waterproof. A spokesperson from L.L. Bean says they are aware of the lawsuit and "we look forward to addressing these claims through the legal process." Lenzi is seeking $5 million in damages after water leaked into the boots during inclement weather a month after she bought them in early 2020. That's when she learned "the 'waterproof' representations and warranties that induced her purchase were false and misleading." The complaint also says Lenzi would not have bought the boots if she had known they weren't waterproof as advertised. The complaint further claims that L.L. Bean knew that their branded boots with zippers, including those advertised as being waterproof, were not waterproof - and advertised them as such anyway. "While waterproof zippers do exist and could have been used for L.L. Bean's Mislabeled Boots, they are considerably more expensive and L.L. Bean chose to use substantially less expensive zipper closures that are not waterproof and then failed to back those zippers with a waterproof gusset" the complaint reads. Product catalogs from zipper closure manufacturers used in L.L. Bean products included as exhibits in the lawsuit show the difference in price between non-waterproof zipper closures ($2.30 per foot at most) and waterproof zipper closures not used (costing $45 per foot at most). The complaint also provides evidence that the company modified webpages for the relevant products after receiving a pre-suit notice in April of 2022, to say that the products zippers are "not waterproof". L.L. Bean has until March 15 to respond to the lawsuit. [GN] LAKEVIEW LOAN: Oglesby Privacy Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled ANTHONY OGLESBY, and TERESA OGLESBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-01247, was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 27, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-20749-DPG to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the Defendant to seek recovery on behalf of themselves, as husband and wife, and over 2.5 million similarly situated, based upon Defendant's alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard its customers' sensitive personally identifiable information. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC operates as a mortgage finance company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Thomas Foss, Esq. HODGE AND LANGLEY LAW FIRM 229 Magnolia Street PO Box 2765 Spartanburg, SC 29304 Telephone: (864) 585-3873 - and - Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC 1919 Cahaba Road Birmingham, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 706-7517 E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com The Defendant is represented by: Evan M. Mannering, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-1500 E-mail: emannering@bakerlaw.com - and - John P. Hutchins, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 1170 Peachtree Street NE Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 459-0050 - and - Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com LE SPORTSAC: Seeks More Time to Comply with Jan. 24 Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HAMMOND MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LE SPORTSAC, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00058-RAL (W.D. Pa.), Le Sportsac moves the Court for an extension of time to comply with its Order granting Plaintiff's motion to certify the class for settlement purposes and for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court granted the Motion on January 24, 2023. Paragraph 7 of the Order requires Defendant to, among other things, ensure the Settlement Website is live and publish the Long-Form Notice and documents filed in the Lawsuit on the Settlement Website within 30 days of the Order approving the Motion. The Defendant is unable to meet the current deadline of February 23, 2023 to perform the requirements outlined in Paragraph 7 of the Order, including activation the Settlement Website, and publishing the Long-Form Notice. The Defendant requests an extension of time until Monday, March 27, 2023 to publish the Settlement Website and the accompanying documents. At that time, the Defendant will also comply with the remaining requirements in paragraph 7, including adding an invisible link to the Defendant's website directing visitors to the Settlement Website and posting a link to the Settlement Website on Le Sportsac's social medial accounts. Further, to allow Class Counsel sufficient time to notify advocacy groups and to ensure Class Members have sufficient time to object to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant requests that the Court continue the Fairness Hearing currently scheduled for May 16, until no less than 90-days after the Notice Deadline, so that the Settlement Class Members will have at least 90-days' notice of the Settlement prior to the Fairness Hearing, in accordance with paragraph 26.2 of the Settlement Agreement. Le Sportsac is a nylon bag and luggage manufacturer and retailer in the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3muVVHT at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: J. David Ziegler, Esq. DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 281-7272 LENOVO INC: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT BURK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting fourth stipulation to extend class certification deadlines as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file motion for class certification and to serve expert disclosures and reports shall be August 23, 2023. 2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to produce experts for deposition shall be October 11, 2023. 3. The Defendant's deadline to file opposition to motion for class certification and to serve expert disclosures and reports shall be December 6, 2023. 4. The Defendant's deadline to produce experts for deposition shall be January 17, 2024. 5. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file reply re motion for class certification shall be February 21, 202.. The hearing on the motion for class certification shall be on March 29, 2024. Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J6GiiI at no extra charge.[CC] LEPRINO FOODS: Motions in Limine Partly OK'd in Vasquez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order that: 1. The Defendants' motions in limine are granted in part and denied in part; and 2. The Plaintiffs' motions in limine are granted in part and denied in part. The Court further finds that Boedeker's rebuttal testimony is sufficiently relevant and reliable. Boedeker's report provides rebuttal opinions to the expert reports of Plaintiffs' class-wide damages expert Brian Kriegler and employee survey expert Jeffrey Petersen. Furthermore, Boedeker's report sufficiently explains how he based his opinions on his review of the facts set forth in the operative Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), Kriegler's expert report, Petersen's expert report, and published literature which he cites throughout his report. For example, Boedeker cites numerous published literature in support of his opinions regarding the adequacy of the sample size used in Petersen's survey. Additionally, Boedeker's discussion regarding premium pay was used to support his conclusion that when Leprino's premium pay policy is fully taken into account, the damages multipliers used in Kriegler's report should be zero. This argument is not a "new" argument as Plaintiffs contend. Rather, it is a rebuttal to Kriegler's proposed method of calculating damages. This class action lawsuit, brought before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(2), involves an employment dispute between Plaintiff class representatives Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke and Defendants Leprino Foods Company and Leprino Foods Dairy Products Company. On March 30, 2020, the Court certified Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants required their non-exempt workers to remain "on-call" during 20 meal and rest breaks in violation of California law. Leprino is an American company that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet whey. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kHPW23 at no extra charge.[CC] LITIGATION PRACTICE: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by March 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beech v. Litigation Practice Group, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057 (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Halil S. Ozerden entered an order granting unopposed Litigation Practice's motion for extension of time to file response to the Plaintiff Carolyn Beech's motion for class certification. -- The Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion is now due on or before March 24, 2023. The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory actions.[CC] MANITOBA: Seeks Dismissal of Proposed Suit Over Vaccine Policy -------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pritchard at winnipegfreepress.com reports that the province of Manitoba and Winnipeg Police Service are seeking a court order to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit launched last year in response to the police service's COVID-19 vaccination policy. Courtney Peters, a civilian member and communications operator with the WPS, is the lead plaintiff in the proposed class action, which is seeking up to $1 million in damages for violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and up to $500,000 for class members in aggravated damages. The proposed class action defines class members as WPS employees who oppose vaccination without what it calls "informed consent" and the disclosure of private health information "under the threat of administrative and disciplinary measures." According to the lawsuit, a WPS workplace policy requiring all employees to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination or take regular rapid antigen tests violated employees' rights under the charter and violated multiple parts of the Manitoba Human Rights Code. Employees who refused to disclose vaccination status or take regular tests were placed on unpaid leave, says the claim. In a notice of motion to strike the statement of claim filed in January, lawyers for the City of Winnipeg, a co-defendant in the lawsuit, argue the plaintiffs, as members of the Winnipeg Police Association labour union, are required to raise any grievances with it, not the city. Peters took her complaints to the union in late 2021, but it declined to file a grievance against the WPS, citing legal advice it was unlikely to succeed. Peters filed a complaint with the Manitoba Labour Board, which dismissed the complaint April 22, 2022. "The statement of claim is an abuse of process as it is a collateral attack on a decision of the Manitoba Labour Board and the issues raised therein ought to be stopped from being reconsidered by this court," the city argued in its notice of motion. In a separate notice of motion, the province and co-defendant Manitoba chief provincial public health officer Dr. Brent Roussin argued they have no role in a lawsuit that boils down to an employee-employer dispute. "The putative class members take issue with employment policies and orders of the City of Winnipeg and/or the Winnipeg Police Service, which apply to them in their capacity as employees," says the notice of motion. "Neither of these defendants is an employer of any of the class members." The notice of motion alleges the statement of claim makes "bald assertions that are demonstrably inaccurate," including allegations COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental" and class members are being required to be vaccinated without consent. The statement of claim "pleads general discontent with vaccines and the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than material facts of any cause of action," says the notice of motion. The WPS required its employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or take a rapid test up to three times a week, as of Nov. 15, 2021. As of February 2022, an estimated 97 per cent of the service was fully vaccinated, WPS Chief Danny Smyth said at the time. The policy was consistent with others adopted by front-line, public service organizations, including health care, corrections, education and child care. The motions to dismiss the lawsuit are set to be heard April 27.[GN] MARK KILMER: Faces Class Suit Over Domestic Violence Allegations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Osher and Julia Cardi at The Gazette reports that a parental evaluator already under fire for saying he disbelieves 90% of the domestic violence allegations he hears in custody cases now faces new legal woes with the filing of a lawsuit that alleges his evaluations are extremely biased and favor abusive parents. The lawsuit, filed in Boulder County District Court on behalf of six mothers, seeks certification as a class action. It states the potential class of plaintiffs is too numerous to identify but estimates at least 60 parents have similar complaints of bias against Mark Kilmer, a licensed Boulder psychologist who is the brother of the actor Val Kilmer. "Kilmer has repeatedly and deliberately omitted credible allegations of spousal abuse, child abuse and child neglect in his reports and recommendations to Colorado's courts," the lawsuit states. Among the six mothers suing is one who says Kilmer negligently failed to disclose to her custody attorney or the judge presiding over her custody case in Douglas County that he already had been stripped from the rosters of parental evaluators eligible for court appointments. That mother also alleges Kilmer misidentified her and her child in portions of his evaluation report due to a "cut and paste" job that used information from another evaluation report he did in Eagle County. Kilmer himself pleaded guilty of a misdemeanor assault charge and a misdemeanor harassment charge in 2007 after his then-wife said he pushed her to the bathroom floor, according to police reports. The charges were dismissed after Kilmer successfully completed domestic violence training and 24 months of probation. The lawsuit filed against him states that he has exhibited systematic bias in his court-appointed parental evaluation work. "As a result of his personal experience of facing allegations of domestic violence and child abuse and his ongoing feelings of resentment and humiliation due to losing decision-making power over his children and his guilty plea related to the domestic violence allegations, Kilmer systematically treats those accused of domestic violence or child abuse with an inordinate amount of sympathy in his work," states the lawsuit, filed by Henry Baskerville, a managing partner with Fortis Law Partners in Denver. "It shocks the conscience," Baskerville said. The Office of the State Court Administrator barred Kilmer from accepting new court appointments for parental evaluations in October, announcing that it had suspended him while "we investigate his continued suitability" for such appointments. Kilmer declined comment when contacted by The Gazette and did not respond to requests for comment after the filing of the lawsuit. His suspension followed separate investigations into Colorado's parental evaluation industry by The Gazette and ProPublica. In an interview with ProPublica, Kilmer said he disbelieves 90% of the abuse allegations he hears during his evaluation work. The lawsuit states that Kilmer charges parents roughly $14,000 per court-ordered custody evaluation report, billing $325 per hour for out-of-court work and $350 per hour for court appearances, depositions and conferences. Kilmer in a letter to the Office of the State Court Administrator before his suspension said that although he pleaded guilty to his own domestic violence charges, he never was violent. "There is not a single bit of it that is true," he wrote in his letter. "Not one word. There was prescription drug abuse, theft of money and false statements to police that I endured from my children's mother." He denied in the letter any bias in his evaluation work. "Most respectfully, if anyone attempts to insinuate or complain that I do not understand how to assess, diagnose and treat victims and/or perpetrators of violent crime in the USA, or how to parent appropriately - then they are mistaken," he wrote. "They do not know me. Or they are falsely accusing me. I wouldn't know how to be gender-biased if I had to." Colorado's network of custody evaluators has historically had little practical oversight, accountability or opportunity for public scrutiny. Reports they submit to the court generally remain sealed, and the Department of Regulatory Agencies seems to rarely choose to investigate complaints made against evaluators' professional licenses. Investigations by The Gazette found judges have relied on inaccurate and biased reports by evaluators and put children at serious risk by giving custody to abusive parents. In these instances, custody evaluators have shown apparent prejudice against one parent - usually mothers - questioning their credibility without proof and making assumptions about parenting without firsthand investigation. Legislators this year are considering creating a task force to study how to improve family court outcomes and develop new training on domestic violence for family court judges. Kilmer never disclosed his suspension to the lawyers or the judge presiding over a Douglas County custody case until he testified on February 14, said Rebecca Amat y Leon, a lawyer who represented the mother, Lauren May Woodruff, one of the people who is suing. "He testified that it was at his discretion to disclose," said Amat y Leon. Douglas County District Court Judge Andrew Baum appointed Kilmer in June to conduct a custody evaluation in the case after a joint motion for Kilmer's appointment from the father and mother. Kilmer's appointment occurred about four months before the state court administrator's office suspended Kilmer from accepting new custody evaluation appointments. When the court administrator's office suspended Kilmer in October from the rosters of parental evaluators and child and family investigators, it announced that it would be up to the discretion of individual judges as to whether Kilmer could complete parental evaluations he had already been appointed by judges to conduct. But Douglas County District Court Judge Benjamin T. Figa, the new judge presiding in the Douglas County custody case, expressed surprise when he learned of the suspension during Kilmer's testimony in February, Amat y Leon said. "He inquired as to why," the attorney said. The mother, Woodruff, said Kilmer's evaluation report in her case appeared to be a "cut and paste" job because it mixed up her name and that of her 7-year-old daughter with the names of another mother and her children. The incorrect names were the subjects of a previous parenting evaluation conducted by Kilmer in another custody case involving the same father. When Woodruff's lawyer confronted Kilmer about the discrepancies in the names, Kilmer testified that it could have been a typographical error. He denied during his testimony using and structuring the Douglas County evaluation around the previous Eagle County report. Woodruff filed a complaint, after her custody hearing, with the state court administrator's office over Kilmer's custody evaluation and testimony in the Douglas County case. She alleged in her complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Gazette, that Kilmer's evaluation was deficient and biased and that he colluded with the father and had breached his letter of engagement agreement. Kilmer's letter of engagement agreement required him to notify the court if either of the parents failed to participate in his parenting evaluation. But Kilmer made no notification to the court after the father left Colorado for Minnesota. When he left, the father told Kilmer in an email, "I'm finding it difficult to process and even work on this case." The father requested in the email that Kilmer "reuse much of what was submitted" in a previous parenting evaluation Kilmer had done in another ongoing custody battle in Eagle County involving the father's relationship with another woman who had divorced him. "Similarly, is it possible for me to include all or part of the Eagle case by reference in this PRE?" the father wrote, apparently referring to the new court-ordered parental responsibility evaluation ordered in Woodruff's case. During a court hearing, Woodruff, the Douglas County mother, provided recordings she took in which Kilmer had assured her that he was not going to recommend that she and her ex-husband have joint decision-making authority for parental responsibilities. The recordings also captured Kilmer telling her the father "probably experiences bipolar disorder with psychotic delusions" and "has a whole lot more to go before he can ever be a 50/50 parent." "Your parenting is exceptional," Kilmer told the mother in the recordings, which were reviewed by The Gazette. "It's excellent. I hope dad can somehow find his way to your level someday." When the evaluation came out, Kilmer had flipped and ended up recommending joint-decision making for parenting responsibilities. Kilmer made that recommendation despite a judge issuing a protection order against the father restraining him from contacting the mother, who had provided evidence of her ex-husband stalking and threatening her. The father has denied doing so in emails to Kilmer. In a prepared statement, he said he was a fit parent. "I incurred a very significant amount of attorney's fees and costs defending false allegations of domestic violence that was only exacerbated by the article about Dr. Kilmer in the middle of my cases," said the father, William Woodruff. He added that his children will not benefit in any way from him having to "defend false allegations about domestic violence, endangering my children or having mental health issues." From the witness stand, Kilmer testified that he was concerned the mother, Woodruff, was alienating the child from the father. But when confronted upon cross examination with his earlier recorded conversations with the mother in which he said that was not a concern, Kilmer backtracked. The lawsuit added that Kilmer's evaluation report "omitted any mention of" five Department of Human Services reports made by therapists and other professionals concerning potential child endangerment by Woodruff's ex-husband. Kilmer also failed to mention two ongoing Department of Human Services investigations in his report, according to the lawsuit. "Kilmer mentioned only his own DHS report for child endangerment but did not disclose the details of his report," the lawsuit added. In addition, Kilmer's case file revealed that he had told a DHS child-protective worker that he would recommend in his custody evaluation that a GPS driving monitor be installed on any vehicle driven by the father. Those files showed Kilmer believed that device was needed because Kilmer believed the father had exhibited reckless disregard for the safety of his children when driving them in his car - once going so far as to drive them at 120 mph across state lines while they were not secured by seatbelts. In the end, Kilmer did not include in his final evaluation report in the Douglas County case the recommendation for a driving monitor despite his assurances to the child-protective worker he would do so. Despite his letter of engagement agreement requiring prompt disclosure if either party did not participate in the evaluation, Kilmer made no disclosure to the mother's attorney or the court of the father's lack of participation. Kilmer also did not respond to eight follow-up emails from Woodruff and her attorney requesting an update regarding his delinquency in producing the report, initially due in September. The father did not participate in Kilmer's evaluation until the end of October, asking for leniency in an email because he hoped Kilmer understood "that it's more than a lot for anyone to deal with concurrently." Kilmer finally produced his report in January after the judge in the case ordered him to do so, but his report made no mention of the father's delayed participation. The lawsuit states that Woodruff incurred about $100,000 in additional legal expenses over six months of expanded litigation due to Kilmer's failure to follow his own letter of engagement agreement and the judge's ordered due date for the report. Kilmer testified that he interviewed witnesses Woodruff and the father had offered up. Then, under cross examination, Kilmer recanted and said the only actual witness he interviewed was the father's mother, who had paid the father's $9,455.50 cost of the evaluation report as well as his additional legal costs. Woodruff paid about $11,050.50 for Kilmer's work on the case. "He testified that he 'spoke' to everyone, but on cross examination he clarified that he received statements and only spoke to one person," said Woodruff's custody lawyer, Amat y Leon, of Kilmer's testimony. Kilmer's final Douglas County parental evaluation had four instances in which Woodruff and her daughter were misidentified and also included specific observations, statements and events only applicable to the mother and children in the previous evaluation report Kilmer did in the Eagle County custody case, Woodruff said. The Eagle County mother also is one of the mothers suing Kilmer. The court administrator's office informed Woodruff that it will not investigate her complaint over Kilmer's evaluation in her case because officials already removed Kilmer from the rosters of parental responsibility evaluators and child and family investigators eligible for court appointments. "Complaints will not be investigated if the person is not active on our rosters," the court administrator's office informed her in an email. Officials with the court administrator's office did not respond to requests for comment from The Gazette. [GN] MATCH GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5 ---------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP on March 7 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the common stock of Match Group, Inc. ("Match" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MTCH) between November 3, 2021 and January 31, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Match is a technology and social media company that operates one of the world's largest portfolios of online dating brands and apps. Match's most notable dating apps include Tinder, Hinge, OkCupid, and PlentyOfFish. Tinder, which generated more than half of Match's revenue during the Class Period, is Match's largest and most important brand. The Class Period begins on November 3, 2021, to coincide with Match's announcement of its third quarter 2021 financial results after the market closed on November 2, 2021. In a letter to shareholders, Defendants touted Tinder's "radical product transformation," which included recently launched product initiatives such as a new "Explore" feature. Defendants further stated that "[t]he interactive and social experiences within Explore are the harbinger for Tinder's long-term vision," and noted that Tinder was working on several other monetization opportunities, such as an in-app virtual currency. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants continued to represent that Tinder was effectively executing on several critical product initiatives that would drive growth for the Company in 2022 and beyond. For example, as recently as May 2022, Defendants assured investors that Tinder was "on track" with these product initiatives and "on schedule with what [Tinder] planned to deliver in 2022." Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was not effectively executing on Tinder's new product initiatives; and (2) as a result, the Company was not on track to deliver Tinder's planned product initiatives in 2022. Investors began to learn the truth on August 2, 2022, when the Company announced financial results for the second quarter of 2022 and warned that it expected Tinder's growth to slow in the second half of 2022 as the result of poor product execution. Defendants admitted that "Tinder did not deliver on its product roadmap for the first half of the year," forcing the Company to delay the launch of several initiatives and optimizations that it had previously expected to generate growth in 2022. On this news, the price of Match common stock declined $13.47 per share, or more than 17%, to close at $63.24 per share on August 3, 2022. Despite these revelations, Defendants continued to assure investors that the Company had revamped the Tinder team and that the new team was successfully executing on the initiatives. For example, on November 1, 2022, Defendants assured investors that Tinder's "[p]roduct execution is already improving" and that "early results are showing promise." However, on January 31, 2023, the Company reported disappointing financial results for 2022, including total revenue that missed the Company's prior guidance. Defendants largely attributed the shortfall to "weaker-than-expected product execution at Tinder, the effects of which became more pronounced as the year progressed." During an earnings conference call the following day, Defendants further admitted that Tinder had "decelerated as the year went on." On this news, the price of Match common stock declined $2.71 per share, or 5%, to close at $51.41 per share on February 1, 2023. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 5, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or acquired Match common stock, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Match Group, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2023 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information: Peter Allocco Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (212) 951-2030 pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN] MATTHEW WADE BEASLEY: Receiver Allowed to Employ LKLSG in SEC Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff v. MATTHEW WADE BEASLEY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00612-CDS-EJY (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants Receiver Geoff Winkler's Motion for Order Authorizing Receiver to Employ Special Litigation Counsel. No response to the Motion was filed with the Court. Under United States District Court for the District of Nevada Local Rule 7-2(d), the Court may treat the failure of the nonmoving party to respond to a motion as consent by that party to the granting of that motion. Under the Order Appointing Receiver, with the Court's approval, the Receiver may employ persons in his discretion to assist him in carrying out his duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, accountants, attorneys, securities traders, registered representatives, financial or business advisers, liquidating agents, real estate agents, forensic experts, brokers, traders or auctioneers. The case concerns complex areas of securities law and entails many Defendants, both individuals and entities. The origins of the case are in an alleged Ponzi scheme in which the Defendants allegedly placed a bulk of $380 million in criminally obtained investor funds into a bank account maintained at and administered by Wells Fargo. The Receiver has determined in his reasonable business judgment that Wells Fargo's actions in connection with the underlying Ponzi scheme warrant additional investigation and potentially a civil action. As a result of this need for further investigation and possible litigation, the Receiver requests authorization from the Court to employ Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP ("LKLSG") to execute these tasks. The Receiver acknowledges the current class action proceeding against Well Fargo in a separate lawsuit and states that if the Court approves the instant Motion, he will enter into common interest and joint prosecution agreements with the class action plaintiffs to facilitate discovery and other matters. He contends LKLSG has substantial experience in litigation involving federal equity receiverships and class actions comprising investor plaintiffs, is nationally renowned for its prowess in handling such matters, and does not have the conflicts that preclude Receiver's existing counsel from participating in potential litigation against Well Fargo. The Receiver asserts that if there is recovery on a claim against Well Fargo on behalf of Receiver, he will pay to LKLSG 25% of the gross proceeds he actually recovered. If there is a joint recovery between the Receiver and the class action plaintiff in the separate litigation, LKLSG will be compensated, along with the counsel representing the class action plaintiffs, from a common fund. In addition, LKLSG will pay its own costs and expenses associated with its representation of Receiver. Finally, LKLSG, as one the law firms involved with the existing class action before Judge Navarro, will withdraw as counsel concurrently with the entry of an order from the Court approving the instant Motion. Upon review of the Receiver's Motion, Judge Youchah finds he is entitled to the relief requested. Therefore, she grants the Receiver's Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9bcveh from Leagle.com. MCDONALDS CORP: Burke Backs Shoppies Union Over Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Visentin of The Sidney Morning Herald reports that Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke has backed the retail union he once represented in a stoush involving a rival wages suit against McDonald's as government lawyers prepared to intervene in the Federal Court action on March 6, 2023. The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA), which Burke worked for as a union organiser between 1997 and 2003, is facing off against Shine Lawyers in competing suits lodged against the fast food giant involving allegations of unpaid wages for shift breaks to workers across Australia. In a rare intervention, lawyers for the Commonwealth will file submissions in the Federal Court on March 6, 2023 supporting the SDA's application over Shine's class action case as the parties prepare to return to court on March 9, 2023 to argue which suit should proceed. Burke said the government had decided to back the SDA because it wanted any compensation awarded by the court to go back to workers, claiming that Shine would clip as much as 25 per cent of the proceeds in fees if its case was successful. The SDA is seeking up to $250 million compensation on behalf of more than 250,000 current and former McDonald's workers, alleging the company and its franchisees denied them paid breaks in breach of an enterprise agreement. "The problem is this, if the litigation law firm claim takes over, then all the costs that law firm claims and the percentages that they claim come straight off the balance of what the workers would otherwise get. And so, I've taken the view, and the government's taken the view, that we need to intervene in this case," Burke told Sky News on March 5, 2023. Burke accused Shine Lawyers of making the same claim as the SDA, but for a lower amount and covering fewer workers, describing the union's case as the "original claim", prompting Shine Lawyers to accuse him of making false assertions. "To have a situation now where something in the order of 25 per cent of an underpayment claim might not get to the workers, that's something the government has an interest in," Burke said. "So, we'll be turning up to court and making the legal case as to why the case from the union - where the workers would get 100 per cent of the funds - is the one that should be allowed to proceed." Shine Lawyers, which is working with SDA's rival, the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union, said it was not appropriate to comment while the matter before the court, but said the firm had commenced its class action process before the SDA had launched its suit. "However, we note the minister, who was an SDA organiser for six years, has made a number of incorrect factual and legal assertions about the class action," Shine Lawyers Joint Head of Class Actions Vicky Antzoulatos said. "Shine Lawyers commenced the class action to obtain justice for affected McDonald's workers in circumstances where no other party was acting for McDonald's workers." Gerard Dwyer, national secretary of the SDA, welcomed Burke's intervention, alleging that workers would lose millions in compensation if Shine's case proceeded and they won. "The SDA wants to deliver hundreds of thousands of workers 100 per cent of their compensation (if the court orders compensation), without paying millions to class-action litigation funding company profits and lawyers," Dwyer said. McDonald's declined to comment on the case. [GN] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Allen v. Blackbaud ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allen, et al., v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02930 (D.S.C., Filed Aug. 12, 2020), 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 Allen 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/3YR2IKh at no extra charge.[CC] MERCEDES BENZ: Stipulation to Vacate Class Cert. Deadlines Amended ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY HAZDOVAC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, and DOES MBUSA 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.3:20-cv-00377-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order amending stipulation to vacate class certification deadlines pending mediation with (Ret.) Judge Gandhi. The deadlines set forth in the Order Amending Case Schedule are vacated -- as are the deadlines set forth in the Stipulation. It is further ordered that: 1. The deadline for the Parties to conduct mediation shall be March 20, 2023. 2. Within 30 days of completion of mediation, the Parties shall submit a revised case scheduling order setting forth class certification deadlines consistent with the time allotted for completion of briefing of class certification/Daubert previously submitted and approved. Mercedes-Benz is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for passenger cars in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mjsZTr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. Robert L. Starr, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Troy M. Yoshino, Esq. Eric J. Knapp, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 E-mail: tyoshino@winston.com eknapp@winston.com MIAMI, FL: West Grove Residents File Suit Over Trash Incinerator ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7 NEWS WSVN reports that more than 100 people in the West Grove community, a predominantly Black neighborhood in Coconut Grove, said the city's old trash incinerator, formerly known as "Old Smokey," and the ash it spewed caused or contributed to their cancer, diabetes and other health issues as well as depressed property values for 50 years. These accusations have led the residents of the area to file a class action lawsuit against the City of Miami. On March 7, the community and attorney Jason Clark, gathered to speak to the public about the lawsuit after a judge denied the city's motion to throw out the case and toss away medical monitoring funds from the case. Many spoke out about their health issues, which they believe are due to the toxicity that leaked into the neighborhood from Old Smokey. "The smoke and the ash would come down and rain down on us," said Thaddeus Scott. "Our clothes would get [the smoke], it would get inside our nose, so quite naturally, we breathed it in." The old trash incinerator, now a Miami Fire Rescue training facility, was shut down in 1970 as a public nuisance by court order, but even after the building was shut down, clouds of smoke and toxic ash billowed through the furnace. "The pain and suffering that my family endured, losing five family members from five different cancers and nobody knew what kind of cancer it was or where it came from," said Hollis Gaitor. Gaitor and his family have been in this house for more than 50 years - feet from the Old Smokey site. His parents have since passed, but he and his sister remain both dealing with health issues. Countless amounts of toxic ash that was mounted in the building, were buried in quarries that provided limestone in Miami's early development. "This was just something we took as normal because it was normal for us but finding out that it wasn't normal," said Scott. The lawsuit states that the government found contaminants in the area six years ago. "They're victimizing the Coconut Grove community again by trying to get rid of the only procedure they have for preventing future harm," said Clark. "This type of community is disenfranchised, formerly segregated Black community, a lot of these individuals don't have the means to go to the doctor every year or every month." 7News has reached out to the City of Miami for comment but has yet to hear back from anyone. A judge will make a decision in the coming months as this community fights for what they believe is right. [GN] MORNING FINANCIAL: Leave to Conduct Class Cert Discovery Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ULERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MORNING FINANCIAL LLC, and LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, Case No. 1:22-cv-02617-MDB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that: 1. Leave of Court be granted to conduct Class Certification and damages related discovery from MORNING FINANCIAL LLC and LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, including third-party discovery as necessary, in support of Class Certification and final damages judgment; 2. The Court reserve jurisdiction on the issue of damages against MORNING FINANCIAL LLC and LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP and to otherwise reserve ruling on a final damages determination against MORNING FINANCIAL LLC and LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP until the completion of discovery and a ruling on Class Certification; and 3. That Plaintiff be permitted to seek a final default judgment against MORNING FINANCIAL LLC and LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, both as to the individual Plaintiff and the putative Class, upon completion of Class Certification and damages discovery from MORNING FINANCIAL LLC and LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP and the Court's ruling on Class Certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J2wfeM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. Steven N. Saul, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com SSaul@JusticeEarned.com SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 Southeast 10 th Ave., Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com - and - Latoy Johnson, Esq. THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY E-mail: Latoy.Johnson@TheHartford.com Daniel S. March 17542 E. 17th St., Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 NATERA INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Natera 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 motion to dismiss the securities class suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. A purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its management in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint, filed in April 2022 and amended in October 2022 (to include, among others, the claims raised in the lawsuit discussed in the preceding paragraph), alleges, among other things, that the management defendants made materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about certain of the Company's products and operations. The complaint seeks, among other relief, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which is currently pending before the Court. Natera, based in Austin, Texas, did not return a request for comment on May 1. [BN] NATERA INC: Bid to Junk Patient Billing Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Natera 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 patient billing class suit dismissal motion is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In November 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by a patient alleging various causes of action relating to the Company's patient billing and seeks, among other relief, class certification, injunctive relief, restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which is currently pending before the Court. Natera, based in Austin, Texas, did not return a request for comment on May 1. [BN] NATIONAL VISION: Faces Exchange Act Class Suit in Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- National Vision 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 March 1, 2023, that the Company faces the Exchange Act-related class suit in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia. On January 27, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and two of the Company's officers. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 for materially false and misleading statements made between May 2021 and May 2022. The complaint seeks unspecified damages as well as equitable relief. The Company believes that the claims alleged are without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. National Vision Holdings, Inc. is an optical retailer, Headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. [BN] NESTLE SA: Consumers May Claim $40 in Coffee-Mate Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ending soon! The $10 Million dollar Nestle Settlement is accepting claims but not for much longer! This class action lawsuit is claiming its Coffee-Mate powder products don't make as many servings as promised. No proof of purchase is required for class members to file a claim form. Read below on how to submit a claim. Do I Qualify? The settlement benefits consumers who purchased specified Coffee-Mate powder creamer products between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 8, 2022. See the list here. How Much will I Receive? You can claim $40 with proof of purchase or $5 without proof of purchase. How Do I Submit a Claim? Go here to submit your claims online by March 14, 2023. To submit a claim go here and click the linked text to request a class member id number. Remember to only submit honest claims. [GN] OKLAHOMA: Faces Class Suit Over Inmates' Mental Health Treatment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Dulaney of The Oklahoman reports that citing a slow process for transferring inmates out of local jails and into treatment centers, representatives of four people with mental illness are suing the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, and the Oklahoma Forensic Center. The class-action lawsuit, which was filed in federal court, is asking that the defendants be ordered to develop a remedial plan to reduce wait times for competency restoration treatment. In Oklahoma, competency is defined as the ability of a person arrested for or charged with a crime to understand the nature of the charges and effectively and rationally assist in his or her defense. A judge or attorneys concerned about a defendant's competency may request the defendant's competency be evaluated. Criminal proceedings are suspended while the defendant is being evaluated. If the court determines the defendant is competent to stand trial, the criminal proceedings resume. But the lawsuit says the state's competency restoration system is broken, and "scores of presumed-innocent Oklahomans who experience severe mental illness are languishing in county jails awaiting competency restoration treatment for prolonged periods that far exceed constitutional limits." Named in the lawsuit are Carrie Slatton-Hodges, who is commissioner for the state Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, and Dr. Crystal Hernandez, executive director of the Oklahoma Forensic Center in Vinita. The lawsuit was filed by Leslie Briggs, Evan Watson and Henry A. Meyer, who are each referred to as attorneys licensed in Oklahoma. Briggs is representing a man and woman, each 42, in Tulsa County. Watson is representing a 46-year-old Comanche County man. Meyer is representing a 22-year-old Oklahoma County man. The lawsuit says the man has a history of mental health problems, including delusional and paranoid thinking, and a prior diagnosis of psychotic disorder. On July 18, he allegedly walked into an apartment in Oklahoma City, stole a guitar and later told officers when no one answered the door, he decided to take the instrument, according to the lawsuit. Later that night, he allegedly entered an apartment without permission, looking for a place to sleep. The lawsuit says he allegedly damaged plumbing fixtures and broke out a window to a neighboring unit so he could get inside "to pray." The man was charged in Oklahoma County District Court with second-degree burglary and grand larceny. Bail was set at $15,000. The lawsuit says because the man is indigent, a public defender was appointed to represent him. However, when his attorney met with him, the man stared at the floor and answered most questions by saying, "I'm schizophrenic." On Aug. 26, the man's attorney filed an application to determine competency. On Dec. 5, he was declared incompetent and ordered to the Oklahoma Forensic Center. As of the March 1 filing of the lawsuit, the man remained behind bars at the Oklahoma County jail, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit says his "mental and emotional condition deteriorates." In Oklahoma, people declared incompetent in court are often denied restoration services while being "caged in county jails" that do not have treatment resources or expertise, the lawsuit says. Some remain in jail more than a year before getting state treatment, according to the lawsuit. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs wrote that they believe the waitlist for those in Oklahoma jails seeking restoration services is at least 100 people. In an email, spokesman Jeffrey Dismukes with the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services said a review of the lawsuit has not been completed, but officials "disagree with its premise". He said officials have worked to begin providing competency restoration services in jails, meaning inmates no longer have to wait for treatment to begin. Competency restoration is a process by which behavioral health professionals work with an individual to attain the ability to participate in their defense, Dismukes said. "Most often this means prescribing medication to treat the individual's mental illness," he said. "Through medication, most individuals are able to gain competency. More complex cases may still be scheduled for transport to the Oklahoma Forensic Center for additional treatment and training." Dismukes said the department also has explored options to reduce the number of people in jail due to behavioral health issues, including suggesting either jail diversions or outpatient competency restoration treatment in the community. "Our hope is that more courts will take advantage of these opportunities and, when possible, allow those persons to transfer to a community treatment setting," he said. [GN] ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Somogyi Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Organogenesis 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 March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Somogyi class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 10, 2021, a class action complaint captioned Somogyi v. Organogenesis Holdings Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of our securities against us and our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The court appointed Donald Martin as lead plaintiff. Mr. Martin filed an amended complaint on October 24, 2022 that brings claims on behalf of a purported class of all purchasers of our securities from August 10, 2020 through August 9, 2022 and alleges violations of federal securities law in connection with alleged false and misleading statements with respect to, among other matters, revenue, sales growth and ability to compete in connection with our Affinity and PuraPly XT products. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unquantified damages as well as attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The action is in the early stages of litigation. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously contest them. Organogenesis is a regenerative medicine company that develops, manufactures, and commercializes solutions for the advanced wound care and surgical and sports medicine markets in the U.S. The Company's products include, among others, "Affinity" and "PuraPly XT". Affinity is a wound covering product used to support the treatment of a variety of wound sizes and types. PuraPly XT is an antimicrobial barrier used for a broad variety of wound types. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: $15MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on May 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kroll Settlement Administration issued a statement regarding the Orrstown Securities Settlement: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, that a hearing will be held on May 19, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse, 1501 N 6th St, Harrisburg, PA 17102, before the Honorable Yvette Kane, United States District Judge, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of this Action, as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 7, 2022 ("Stipulation") reached between the parties, consisting of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) in cash, should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Class Members; (2) whether the release by Class Members of claims as set forth in the Stipulation should be authorized; (3) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds ("Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether to approve Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and for reimbursement of litigation expenses; (5) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Anthony F. Ceddia, Jeffrey W. Coy, Mark K. Keller, Andrea Pugh, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Gregory A. Rosenberry, Kenneth R. Shoemaker, Glenn W. Snoke, John S. Ward, Bradley S. Everly, Joel R. Zullinger, Jeffrey W. Embly, Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC, Piper Sandler & Co., and Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, as set forth in the Stipulation; and (6) whether the Judgment, in the form attached to the Stipulation, should be entered. Please note that the date, time and location of the settlement hearing are subject to change without further notice. If you plan to attend the hearing, you should check the docket, view the Settlement website at www.OrrstownSecuritiesSettlement.com, or contact Lead Counsel (identified below) to be sure that no change to the date, time or location of the hearing has been made. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ORRSTOWN STOCK AT ANY TIME FROM MARCH 15, 2010 TO AND INCLUDING APRIL 26, 2012, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees, And Settlement Hearing ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies by writing to Orrstown Securities Settlement, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, P.O. Box 5324, New York, NY, 10150-5324, 833-709-0094, or by visiting www.OrrstownSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form by First-Class mail postmarked no later than June 22, 2023, or submitted electronically no later than June 22, 2023, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless the deadline is extended, your failure to submit your Claim Form by the above deadline will preclude you from receiving any payment from the Settlement. If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than April 28, 2023, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice, referred to above. All Class Members who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation. If you are a Class Member and want to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's fee and expense application, the objection must be in the form and manner explained in the detailed Notice, and must be mailed to each of the following recipients, such that it is received no later than April 28, 2023: Clerk's Office: United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse, 1501 N 6th St, Harrisburg, PA 17102. Lead Counsel: Nicholas E. Chimicles, Kimberly M. Donaldson-Smith, Timothy N. Mathews, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, 361 West Lancaster Avenue, Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041, 610-642-8500. Orrstown's Counsel on Behalf of Defendants: David Creagan, David Edwards, Farzana Islam, White and Williams, LLP, 1650 Market Street, Suite 1800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above. Additional information about the Settlement can be found at www.OrrstownSecuritiesSettlement.com. Dated: February 1, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PACTIV LLC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Wilson & Rodriguez Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enters Final Judgment in the cases, MARK WILSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. PACTIV LLC, Defendant; and JACK RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. PACTIV, LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 5:20-cv-01691-SB-KK, 5:21-cv-00841-SB-KK (C.D. Cal.). For the reasons set forth in the Court's Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Granting in Part Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Payments, Judge Blumenfeld enters judgment in accordance with the Parties' Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release. With the exception of the following four individuals who opted out of the Settlement Class (Miguel Valadez Naranjo, Yang Pao Vue, Felipe Dela Cruz and Jorge Arias Orozco), this judgment will be binding on: All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant Pactiv LLC in California as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees at any time during the time period from May 29, 2016 to July 1, 2022. These Participating Class Members have released and forever discharged the Released Parties (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) for any and all Released Class Claims: All claims that reasonably could have been raised based on the factual allegations made in the Complaints in the Actions during the Class Period, including: (i) all claims for alleged failure to pay straight time, overtime, or double time wages, failure to pay wages for off-the-clock work, and failure to pay other wages of any kind during employment either under the California Labor Code, the FLSA, or common law; (ii) failure to provide meal periods or pay meal period premiums; (iii) failure to provide rest periods or pay rest period premiums; (iv) failure to pay minimum wages; (v) failure to pay final wages due at separation; (vi) failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements; (vii) claims brought under Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. including, but not limited to, all claims for unfair, unlawful and harmful conduct to Class Members, the general public and the Defendant's competitors and claims of unlawfully gaining an unfair advantage over other businesses; (viii) PAGA claims for civil penalties due to any Labor Code violations by the Defendant arising out of or reasonably related to facts alleged in the complaint including, but not limited to, Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198; (ix) claims arising from any violation of any applicable Wage Order; (x) claims for failure to reimburse expenses; (xi) claims based on miscalculations of the regular rate of pay; (xii) claims based on failure to pay accrued vacation wages; (xiii) penalties of any nature; (xiv) interest; (xv) attorneys' fees and costs; and (xvi) any other claims arising out of or reasonably related to facts alleged in the respective Complaints filed in the Actions during the Class Period. Additionally, all PAGA Members and the LWDA have released and forever discharged the Released Parties for any and all Released PAGA Claims: All claims asserted through California Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq., that reasonably arise out of or are related to the Released Class Claims during the PAGA Period. Additionally, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, Wilson and Rodriguez have released and forever discharged the Released Parties from any and all claims, known and unknown, asserted and not asserted, which either of them has or may have against the Released Parties, and expressly waive all rights and benefits conferred upon them by the provisions of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code. Notice of Entry of the Judgment will be provided by CPT Group, Inc. through publication on CPT Group, Inc.'s website within seven calendar days of its entry. This is a Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Final Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/22nve8sh from Leagle.com. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle Merger Deal Suit for $122.5M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benzinga of Investing.com reports that Paramount Global (NASDAQ: PARA) has agreed to pay $122.5 million in a lawsuit settlement claiming that the CBS-Viacom merger was unfair to shareholders. The company revealed that it has agreed to settle the class action litigation pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, reports the Variety. According to the lawsuit, during the merger process, CBS stock was overpriced, and Viacom was undervalued, causing harm to Viacom shareholders. The lawsuit alleged that Paramount Global's chairwoman, Shari Redstone, ousted the board members in a "tyrannical" effort to merge the two companies, as reported by Variety. The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the lead plaintiff in the case, has said in a statement that the case underscores the problems with dual-class share structures. "CalPERS believes that this settlement, one of the largest class action settlements in Delaware history, confirms our decision to take action against controller overreach and to rectify the harm suffered by Viacom's unaffiliated stockholders," the outlet quoted Matthew Jacobs, the general counsel of CalPERS saying. According to the report, Paramount Global faces a separate class action lawsuit from the CBS shareholders. That lawsuit challenges the merger and claims that Joseph Lanniello, the former acting CEO of CBS, was given a $125 million severance to buy his support for the merger. The CBS-Viacom merger has created a new company called ViacomCBS, led by Paramount CEO Bob Bakish. Last month, Paramount reported a net loss attributable to common stockholders of $37.9 million, or $0.17 per diluted share. [GN] PAYPAL INC: Faces Suit Over Data Breach Affecting 35,000 Users -------------------------------------------------------------- hackread.com reports that online payment giant PayPal is in hot water once again, this time over a data breach that exposed the personal and financial information of almost 35,000 individuals. A proposed class action filed by plaintiffs Ashley Pillard and Destiny Rucker alleges that the company's negligence was to blame for the December 2022 incident. It is worth noting that, as reported by Hackread.com, on January 19th, 2023, PayPal began contacting nearly 35,000 users with a data breach notification, explaining that their accounts had been hacked between December 6th and 8th, 2022. While PayPal was quick to identify and contain the breach as soon as it happened, the investigation took nearly two weeks to complete. During this time, the company confirmed that the hackers had gained access to the user accounts using valid credentials, although they denied that this was a result of a breach in their systems. According to PayPal, there was no evidence to suggest that the user credentials were obtained directly from them, but the company is taking all necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of its users' accounts. The affected users were been advised to reset their passwords and enable two-factor authentication (2FA) as a precautionary measure. According to the complaint, PayPal failed to implement basic security measures or comply with industry data protection standards and guidelines set forth by the Federal Trade Commission. As a result, sensitive information including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, tax identification numbers, and dates of birth were all exposed. As per Bloomberg's report, the lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. If the case proceeds as a class action, it could potentially represent thousands of affected individuals seeking damages from PayPal. In 2022, PayPal reportedly had a user base of 435 million, which includes users who have made at least one transaction during the year. The online payment giant has been experiencing a steady increase in its user base, with more and more people relying on its services for digital transactions. However, with this new lawsuit, the company is once again under scrutiny for its handling of sensitive data and failure to protect its users' privacy. [GN] PURE ENERGY: Metzler Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Mark Metzler filed an appeal from a district court opinion and order dated Feb. 6, 2023 and Judgment dated Feb. 7, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled Mark Metzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pure Energy USA LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09798, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff Mark Metzler brings this putative class action against Defendant Pure Energy USA LLC for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a potential class, alleges that Defendant violated the TCPA by making unsolicited calls to Plaintiff's and potential class members' mobile phones using an artificial or prerecorded voice without permission. On March 8, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case and motion to strike Plaintiff's first amended complaint. On February 6, 2023, Judge Valerie E. Caproni entered an Order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's first amended complaint was DISMISSED with prejudice. On February 7, judgment was entered by the Clerk of Court terminating all open motions and deadlines and closing the case. The appellate case is captioned as Metzler v. Pure Energy USA LLC, Case No. 23-249, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Feb. 27, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Metzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Defendant-Appellee Pure Energy USA LLC is represented by: John William McGuinness, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 RABTRA LLC: Order on General Pretrial Management Entered in Voleman ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH VOLFMAN, v. RABTRA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01369-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- The Voleman action has been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: 1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. 5. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and letter-motions filed via ECF are required only if the filing contains voluminous attachments. Courtesy copies should be delivered promptly, should bear the ECF header generated at the time of electronic filing, and should include tabs for the attachments. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SEuYxs at no extra charge.[CC] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appeals Remand of Zortea Suit -------------------------------------------------- SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand in the lawsuit entitled Monica Zortea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-22-cv-01309, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, to the Western District of Pennsylvania, is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by requiring consumers to seek repairs only from authorized service providers or use only Samsung-branded replacement parts for repairs. On Oct. 12, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Cathy Bissoon on Feb. 14, 2023. The Court further held that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be denied as moot without prejudice because the Court is remanding the suit to Allegheny County. The appellate case is captioned Monica Zortea v. Samsung Electronics America Inc, et al., Case No. 23-8010, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 24, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MONICA ZORTEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 (724) 714-3095 (717) 491-9162 (412) 222-5740 - and - Kenneth A. Held, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (716) 341-2397 (412) 322-9243 Defendants-Petitioners SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC., et al. are represented by: Michael A. Comber, Esq. Stephen W. Gorman, Esq. REISINGER COMBER & MILLER 436 Seventh Avenue 300 Koppers Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 894-1380 - and - Thomas R. Waskom, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH 951 East Byrd Street Riverfront Plaza, East Tower Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-8403 SAN DIEGO, CA: Cordero Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled NOE CORDERO, PATRICK FISHER, ROBERT RUDE, KRIS WALB, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00023593-CU-BC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb. 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00365-LAB-JLB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. City of San Diego is a political subdivision of the State of California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mara W. Elliott, Esq. M. Travis Phelps, Esq. Paul H. James, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101-4100 Telephone: (619) 533-5800 Facsimile: (619) 533-5856 E-mail: pjames@sandiego.gov SCIPLAY CORP: Fife Putative Class Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- SciPlay 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 United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the Fife putative class suit on August 18, 2022. On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff, Sheryl Fife, filed a putative class action complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corporation, against the SciPlay’s Parent company, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual coins playing its Parent’s online social casino games, including but not limited to Jackpot Party® Casino and Gold Fish® Casino. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified money damages (including treble damages as appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre and post judgment interest, and injunctive and/or declaratory relief. On July 2, 2018, its parent company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied on December 18, 2018. The Parent company filed its answer to the putative class action complaint on January 18, 2019. On August 24, 2020, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint and to substitute a new plaintiff, Donna Reed, for the initial plaintiff, and re-captioned the matter Reed v. Scientific Games Corporation. On August 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against our Parent, asserting the same claims, and seeking the same relief, as the complaint filed by Sheryl Fife. On September 8, 2020, Parent company filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims and to dismiss the action, or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On June 17, 2021, the district court denied that motion, and on June 23, 2021, SGC filed a notice of appeal from the district court's denial of that motion, and also filed a motion to stay all district court proceedings, pending the appeals court's ruling on the Company's arbitration appeal. On November 23, 2021, Scientific Games entered into an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit for the amount of $24.5 million. On December 3, 2021, the district court granted a joint motion to stay appellate proceedings until final approval by the district court of the parties’ settlement. On January 18, 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement, and plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement agreement. On January 19, 2022, the district court granted preliminary approval to the parties' proposed settlement. On August 12, 2022, the district court gave its final approval to the settlement. On August 18, 2022, the court entered judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice. Although the case was brought against Light & Wonder, pursuant to the Intercompany Services Agreement, SciPlay fully paid the settlement previously accrued in the amount of $24.5 million during the third quarter of 2022, due to the matter arising as a result of the Company's business. SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March 2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific Games Corporation. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Burns Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ SeaWorld Entertainment 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 Burns class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 27, 2022, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company captioned Quinton Burns individually and Next Friend of K.B., a minor v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC, Civil Case No. 2:22-cv-09941. The complaint states the putative class consists of Quinton Burns and K.B. Burns and similarly situated Black people. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint adding an additional seven adult and seven minor class representative plaintiffs in which they allege the class consists of themselves and similarly situated minority persons and also disclosed an additional 89 families and 125 children represented by Plaintiffs' counsel who are allegedly members of the purported class (the "First Amended Complaint"). The First Amended Complaint alleges the Company engaged in disparate treatment of Class members based on their race and in so doing violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Pennsylvania common law. The First Amended Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs as well declarative and injunctive relief. The parties are engaged in discovery. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss all counts. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Orlando, Florida. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Highfield Capital Securities Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment 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 Highfields Capital securities class suit was dismissed by the United States District Court in the Southern District of California in May 2022. On June 14, 2018, a lawsuit captioned Highfields Capital I LP et al v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. et al, was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its former and present executive officers. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities laws and Florida common law, regarding the impact of the film Blackfish on SeaWorld's business. The complaint further alleges that such statements were made to induce Plaintiffs to purchase common stock of the Company at artificially-inflated prices and that Plaintiffs suffered investment losses as a result. In May 2022, the parties reached a resolution of the matter, and the case has now been dismissed with prejudice. The full settlement amount is not considered material and was paid in the second quarter of 2022. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Orlando, Florida. SINGULARITY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Crivellaro Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Singularity Future Technology Ltd. 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Crivellaro class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 9, 2022, Piero Crivellaro, purportedly on behalf of the persons or entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between February 2021 and November 2022, filed a putative class action against the Company and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to alleged false or misleading disclosures made by the Company in its public filings. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, plus interest, costs, fees, and attorneys' fees. On February 7, 2023, two additional plaintiffs moved to be appointed as the lead class plaintiff in this action; those motions remain under the Court’s consideration. As this action is still in the early stage, the Company cannot predict the outcome. Singularity Future Technology Ltd. is into the arrangement of transportation of freight & cargo based in New York. SMUGGLER LLC: Costa Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled J. COSTA and K. PAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SMUGGLER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company fka Smuggler, Inc., a California Corporation; RARE BIRD HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; BRIAN CARMODY, an individual; PATRICK MILLINGSMITH, an individual; DIVISION 7, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV01163, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00313 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages from claims arising under the laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Smuggler, LLC is an entertainment company providing commercial and music production services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott J. Witlin, Esq. Michael P. Witczak, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 E-mail: scott.witlin@btlaw.com michael.witczak@btlaw.com SOFI TECHNOLOGIES: Juarez Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ SoFi Technologies, 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 Juarez class suit settlement is subject for court approval. Juarez et al v. SoFi Lending Corp. SoFi Lending Corp. and SoFi (collectively, the "SoFi Defendants") are defendants in a putative class action, captioned as Juarez v. Social Finance, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-03386-HSG (N.D. Cal.), filed against them in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2020. Plaintiffs, who are conditional permanent residents or Deferred Access for Childhood Arrival ("DACA") holders, allege that the SoFi Defendants engaged in unlawful lending discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and California Civil Code, § 51, et seq., through policies and practices by making such categories of applicants ineligible for loans or eligible only with a co-signer who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. Plaintiffs further allege that the SoFi Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by accessing the credit reports of non-United States citizen loan applicants who hold green cards with a validity period of less than two years without a permissible purpose. As relief, Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and a purported class of similarly-situated non-United States citizen loan applicants, a declaratory judgment that the challenged policies and practices violate federal and state law, an injunction against future violations, actual and statutory damages, exemplary and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The parties entered into a settlement agreement that was fully executed in April 2022 and the plaintiffs have now moved for and obtained preliminary approval of the settlement from the court. The class settlement, which contemplates an aggregate payment by SoFi of an immaterial amount, remains subject to final court review and approval, which the Company expects to occur in 2023. SoFi Technologies, Inc. is a member-centric, one-stop shop for digital financial services that allows members to borrow, save, spend, invest and protect their money. The company's mission is to help its members achieve financial independence in order to realize their ambitions. The company is based in San Francisco, California. STEVENS BOOKSHOP: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stevens Bookshop, Inc. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Stevens Bookshop, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01759-VEC (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stevens Books -- https://www.stevensbooks.com/ -- is a leading retail book provider specializing in new and used Christian books, textbooks, fictions, out-of-print, and rare books.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com TALKSPACE INC: Misleads Patients on Therapist Matches, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action claims Talkspace has misled new patients about the availability of its online therapists and secretly enrolls consumers into automatically renewing subscriptions without consent. The 26-page lawsuit alleges the online therapy platform lures new patients by falsely promising that they'll be personally "matched" with a qualified therapist within 48 hours. What prospective patients are not told, however, is that Talkspace has far fewer qualified therapists on hand than it needs to meet the outsized demand of its thousands of patients, the filing claims. The moment a new patient is "matched" with a therapist, Talkspace then enrolls the consumer into an automatically recurring subscription plan "without their permission," even if they have yet to have a session with the provider, the case alleges. Because Talkspace does not employ enough therapists to meet its massive patient demand, those in search of professional mental health services through the company are often unable to match with providers suitable for their needs, the suit stresses. Making matters worse, Talkspace forces patients to forfeit all paid-for therapy sessions that go unused within 30 days, even if their assigned therapist has no availability within that timeframe, the filing says. "By prioritizing profits over patients, Talkspace betrayed the very mission that it claimed to uphold," the complaint scathes. "Talkspace's unethical and fraudulent business practices put vulnerable patients at risk, depriving them of the care they deserved and damaging their trust in the mental health industry as a whole." For Talkspace, mental healthcare takes a backseat to profits, filing claims After its launch in 2015, Talkspace, which was founded by "two individuals that held no medical licenses and had no experience working in the healthcare sector," quickly became a heavy hitter in the burgeoning industry of virtual mental health services, the lawsuit states. Talkspace's "relentless quest for growth and profit," coupled with heavy spending on marketing and advertising, resulted in a rapidly expanding user base, which surged even more during the COVID-19 pandemic, the case relays. As the suit tells it, Talkspace, which purports to offer "therapy on demand" via a virtual platform that provides audio-, video- and text-based therapy sessions, was valued at $1.4 billion after going public in a 2021 SPAC merger, a valuation that was based on the platform's dramatic growth and the enormous demand for its services amid the global health crisis. Per the case, however, Talkspace failed to invest in building a network of qualified therapists with the same enthusiasm it displayed in satisfying investors, evidencing the company's focus on profits and returns instead of patients' well-being. The filing charges that Talkspace even cited in a presentation to investors the 30 percent increase in the nationwide suicide rate as "evidence of a massive untapped market." "For Talkspace, people in need of mental health services represented the promise of outsized returns for Talkspace shareholders," the complaint says. As the case tells it, Talkspace's feverish growth "created fundamental tension within the company," as the delivery of healthcare "took a back seat" to profit-driven business decisions. One way this tension manifested, the suit says, was through "major breaches of patient confidentiality, false advertising, and the decision to force patients into automatically recurring subscription plans without notice or permission." In fact, the company has shown "routine carelessness" with patient confidentiality for the sake of commercial profit, the complaint alleges. In particular, two former Talkspace employees claimed in a 2020 New York Times article that the company "mined confidential therapy sessions for phrases to share with the marketing team" in order to "better target potential customers," the filing shares. Lawsuit says Talkspace's "personalized" matching system is deceiving Within four years of its launch, Talkspace had "tens of thousands of paying patients" and "not nearly enough therapists to treat them," the suit says. But rather than turn people away, the company continued to accept new patients, even when no therapists were available, the case claims. According to the complaint, Talkspace's "proprietary matching algorithm" promises patients a "personalized match" based on their initial needs assessment, usually within 48 hours. After being notified by email of a match, the patient is directed to select one of three therapist options generated via the algorithm, the filing states. The lawsuit argues, however, that "the algorithm relies on, at best, the therapists' availability and little else," such as the patient's specific therapeutic needs, which may include treatment for substance abuse, depression or anxiety. "Unfortunately, Talkspace's so-called algorithm and intake process consistently fail to offer patients useful matches," the suit reads. "In many cases, Talkspace just ignores basic requests like gender or specialty." As the case tells it, the company's inadequate matching system is yet another symptom of its imbalanced focus on profit and growth. In fact, employee reviews found on websites such as Glassdoor and Indeed describe "massive caseloads" for therapists that "undermine clinical work" and "make personalized care, or any care at all, nearly impossible," the complaint relays. Per the filing, Talkspace therapists often treat more than 60 clients a week, roughly twice as many as traditional full-time therapists. The lawsuit relays that new patients are sometimes made to wait several weeks or longer to receive mental healthcare, only to be matched with an "unsuitable or incompatible" provider. Rather than disclose its overcapacity problem to new patients, Talkspace instead continues to welcome new users willing to prepay for counseling sessions and perpetuates the illusion that it has a sufficient network of in-house therapists ready to be matched with and suitable to meet the specific needs of consumers, the suit states. "While this 'matching' policy might help Talkspace achieve its short-term growth and revenue targets," the case stresses, "it endangers the patients that put their trust in Talkspace to treat their mental health." Talkspace's checkout page makes no mention of auto-renewing subscriptions, suit says To sign up, new patients choose a service from a menu of counseling options on the Talkspace website or app and then complete an assessment of their needs, the filing says. At this time, Talkspace informs patients that they will be charged only after they're matched with a therapist and presents them with weekly pricing options, the lawsuit explains. After selecting a plan, new registrants are sent to a checkout page that makes no mention of an automatically renewing subscription, much less seeks a patient's consent to enroll, the suit claims. Though the checkout page vaguely references "future payments" above the "[a]uthorize my credit card" button, this disclosure is lightly colored and smaller than the rest of the text, the case shares. "The wording and visual design of Talkspace's sign-up process deceives customers into unknowingly purchasing an automatically renewing monthly plan," the lawsuit summarizes. Additionally, Talkspace fails to provide new users with its cancellation policy and instead "forces its patients to jump through numerous hoops just to cancel an extremely expensive subscription that they never signed up for," the complaint alleges. Thousands have taken to the internet to complain, lawsuit says Reams of patient complaints about Talkspace can be found on the Better Business Bureau (BBB) website, the Google and Apple app stores, Twitter, and elsewhere online, the filing shares. One user complaint on the BBB's site explains that, after being matched with a provider who had no availability and attempting to switch therapists, the patient was not matched again before their next automatic renewal charge went through, the suit relays. Another review claims the patient's prepaid therapy sessions expired "before [he] even knew [he] was charged for them" and that Talkspace's customer service "[g]ives you the runaround" when patients seek a refund, the case states. The plaintiff, a California resident, claims to have paid for therapy sessions through Talkspace in September 2022, believing that the company would match her with a suitable therapist from the many she understood it to employ. According to the filing, after the plaintiff was unhappy with her first therapist, it took Talkspace numerous weeks to match her with another one. During this time, the company charged her credit card without her consent as part of its automatic renewal program, even though it had failed to pair her with a new provider, the lawsuit says. As the suit tells it, when the plaintiff learned of the charges, she contacted Talkspace for a refund, which the company has allegedly refused to issue. Who's covered by the lawsuit? The case looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased therapy sessions from Talkspace and agreed to its terms of use. The suit also seeks to cover any California residents who were automatically enrolled into and charged for a Talkspace subscription plan. How do I join the lawsuit? Typically, there's nothing you need to do to join or add your name to a class action lawsuit when it's first filed. The time to act is if and when the lawsuit settles, at which time people covered by the settlement-known as class members-may receive direct notice of the deal via email and/or regular mail with instructions on what to do next and their legal rights. Remember, it often takes months or even years for a class action lawsuit to be resolved. If you paid for therapy sessions from Talkspace, or simply want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuit and settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] TALKSPACE INC: Weizman Files Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Talkspace, Inc. The case is styled as Naomi Weizman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Talkspace, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00912 (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Talkspace -- https://www.talkspace.com/ -- is an online and mobile therapy company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 212-9300 Fax: (415) 373-9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com TEMASEK HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Cryptocurrency Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Rezwana Manjur of Marketing - Interactive reports that Temasek was recently named in a class action lawsuit filed in Miami, Florida, as one of 18 defendants due to its association with beleaguered cryptocurrency exchange FTX to defraud customers. Other prominent names included Sequoia Capital Operations and SoftBank Vision Fund. According to the class action complaint filed, seen by MARKETING-INTERACTIVE, the suit claimed that "defendant venture capital firms wielded their power, influence and deep pockets to launch FTX's house of cards to its multibillion-dollar scale". The lawsuit also pointed to a statement on Temasek's website dated 17 November 2022, which read: "We conducted an extensive due diligence process on FTX, which took approximately eight months from February to October 2021." The 83-paged lawsuit adds that "Temasek, for example, reports that it conducted eight months of diligence, including significant regulatory and licensing due diligence on the business model of FTX, particularly on financial regulations, licensing, anti-money laundering (AML)/Know Your Customer (KYC) and sanctions across multiple jurisdictions, a review of [FTX's] audited financial statements and a cybersecurity review." It also said that Temasek reports to have done its due diligence throughout multiple rounds, and specifically "enquired about the relationship, preferential treatment, and separation between Alameda and FTX". For this it "gathered qualitative feedback on FTX and [its] management team based on interviews with people familiar with the company, including employees, industry participants, and other investors." Meanwhile, Temasek has also initiated an internal review, deputy prime minister and minister for finance Lawrence Wong told parliament in December last year. The initiation was done after Temasek said it would write down its US$275 million investment into cryptocurrency exchange FTX. In response to questions, minister Wong said that while it is understandable that some members have suggested implementing more guidelines and safeguards over the investments made by Temasek and GIC, "the governance structures in place on March 6, 2023 for Temasek and GIC are already more extensive than those of a typical company". Wong said that, "Temasek recognises this and has issued a comprehensive statement to explain its due diligence process and the circumstances leading to its investment in FTX. Temasek has also initiated an internal review by an independent team to study and improve its processes, and to draw lessons for the future." He added that while the FTX loss is disappointing, and is being taken seriously, the occurrence of investment losses does not in itself imply that the governance system is not working. Rather, this is the nature of investment and risk-taking. "What is important is that our investment entities take lessons from each failure and success, and continue to take well-judged risks in order to achieve good overall returns in the long term. In this way, we can continue to add to our national reserves, and provide a stable income stream to fund government programmes for a long time to come," he said. DPM Wong also said he is confident that the Temasek Board and management team will learn and improve from this experience. [GN] TERRAN ORBITAL: Mullen Must File Info on Class Notice Publication ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEFFREY MULLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TERRAN ORBITAL INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-CV-1394 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York orders the Plaintiff to advise the Court in writing no later than March 17, 2023, of the date and manner in which he published the class notice. On Feb. 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action on behalf of Terran Orbital shareholders who received their shares through its merger with a special purpose acquisition company. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11(a) and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires that not later than 20 days after the date on which the complaint is filed, the plaintiff will cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period. Therefore, Judge Furman enters the instant Order regarding the notice to the purported plaintiff class members. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9j7wa6 from Leagle.com. THOMAS EXCAVATING: Preliminary Pretrial Order Entered in Kise Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN KISE, v. THOMAS EXCAVATING, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00163-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- Any initial disclosures shall be April 15, 2023 made by: -- Any motion to amend the pleadings May 26, 2023 or to join additional parties shall be filed by: -- If the case is a class action, Sept. 20, 2023 the parties agree that the motions for conditional collective certification and class certification shall be filed by: The Plaintiff has asserted a putative overtime collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and a putative overtime class action under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"), and O.R.C. section 2307.60 on behalf of: "all current and former employees of Defendants who were employed as CDL Drivers who did not make interstate trips in Defendants' regular course of business and could not reasonably have been expected by Defendants to make an interstate journey in the regular course of business at any time within the period of three (3) years preceding the commencement of this action through the date of judgment (2 years for the OMFWSA claims)." The Complaint seeks all available relief under the FLSA, the OMFWSA, the OPPA, and O.R.C. section 2307.60. Plaintiff has set forth a jury demand in his Complaint. The Defendants deny liability for all of the claims asserted in the Complaint and deny that this case is appropriate for class or collective action treatment. The parties agree that a first phase of discovery on the Named Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs and for class/collective certification shall be completed by Aug. 31, 2023, and if certification is granted, the parties will set a second phase for additional Opt-in and class discovery, as appropriate. For purposes of complying with this order, all parties shall schedule their discovery in such a way as to require all responses to discovery to be served prior to the cut-off date, and shall file any motions relating to discovery within the discovery period unless it is impossible or impractical to do so. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on any matter related to discovery, they are directed to arrange a conference with the Court. The Plaintiff(s) will a make a settlement demand by 30 days after the close of the opt-in period, if any, or 30 days after the Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. The Defendant will respond within three weeks of receipt of Plaintiff's demand. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case. The parties understand that this case will be referred to an attorney mediator, or to the Magistrate Judge, for a settlement conference. Thomas Excavating offers the following services: Excavating, grading, septic tank installation and repairs. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m6gaeT at no extra charge.[CC] THREE WISHES FOODS: Luna Sues Over Deceptive Labeling and Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Luna, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Three Wishes Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00922-TSH (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2023), is brought against Defendant to seek redress for its unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing the THREE WISHES cereal which make protein claims on the front and back of the product packaging--including that the cereal contains 8 grams of protein, is high protein, and offers more protein than the competition--while omitting a statement of the corrected amount of protein from the Nutrition Facts Panel ("NFP"). Consumers are increasingly health conscious and, as a result, many consumers seek foods high in protein. To capitalize on this trend, the Defendant markets its Products1 as being "high in protein" and offering "more protein" than competitors. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") prohibits "high" protein claims unless the food product provides at least 20% of the daily recommended value for protein. Further, Defendant prominently labels its Products as being "high in protein" and providing specific amounts of protein per serving depending on the product, such as "8g PROTEIN" per serving on the front and back of its Cinnamon flavored cereal. Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each product will actually provide the amount of protein per serving claimed on the front of the product package in a form the body can use. The FDA required method for measuring protein quality is called the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score ("PDCAAS"). It combines a protein source's amino acid profile and its percent digestibility into a discount factor ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 that, when multiplied by the total protein quantity, shows how much protein in a product is actually available to support human nutritional requirements. Because consumers are generally unaware about the usability of various proteins, and may even be unaware of the total amount of usable protein they should ingest each day, the FDA prohibits manufacturers from advertising or promoting their products with a protein claim unless they have satisfied two requirements. First, the manufacturer must calculate the "corrected amount of protein per serving" based on the quality of the product's protein using the PDCAAS method. Second, the manufacturer must use the PDCAAS computation to provide "a statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving" in the nutrition facts panel ("NFP") "expressed as" a percent daily value ("%DV") and placed immediately adjacent to the statement of protein quantity. The primary protein sources in Defendant's Products are chickpeas and pea protein. The PDCAAS score is approximately .752 and .93,3 which means Defendant's products will provide nutritionally less than the protein quantity claimed. Nevertheless, Defendant failed to provide in the NFP a statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving calculated according to the PDCAAS methodology and expressed as a %DV. Accordingly, the protein claims on the package, such as "8g PROTEIN" are unlawful in violation of parallel state and federal laws because Defendant did not comply with the regulatory requirements for making a protein claim. The Defendant's unlawful and deceptive conduct is not limited to the specific protein representations and the failure to include the %DV. Additionally, Defendant misrepresents that its Products are "high in protein" despite failing to provide sufficient amounts of quality protein to make that representation. The Defendant's unlawful and misleading labeling caused Plaintiff and members of the class to pay a price premium, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Products during the Class Period. The Defendant produces, markets and distributes its consumer food products in retail stores across the United States including stores physically located in the State of California and in this district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher T. Aumais, Esq. Christopher B. Good, Esq. Ryan Gustafson, Esq. GOOD | GUSTAFSON | AUMAIS LLP 2330 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 103 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (310) 274-4663 Email: cta@ggallp.com cbg@ggallp.com jrg@ggallp.com - and - Amir Shenaq, Esq. SHENAQ PC 3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500 Atlanta GA 30326 Phone: (888) 909-9993 Email: amir@shenaqpc.com - and - Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons, Ste. 102 Pittsburgh PA 15212 Phone: (888) 412-5291 Email: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com TORISHIKI USA: Dos Passos Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY FERNANDO SILVA DOS PASSOS, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff v. TORISHIKI USA CORP. d/b/a TORIEN, and JULIAN HAKIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01605 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies and practices. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; liquidated damages; statutory penalties; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, as well as recover from Defendants for hostile work environment created by nationality and sexual orientation discrimination pursuant to New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a dishwasher for Defendants' restaurant Torien from August 1, 20022 until his employment ended on August 13, 2022. Torishiki USA Corp. owns and operates a restaurant in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Faces Suit Over Labor Depreciation Deductions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Simpson of Insurance Journal reports that two Trumbull Insurance customers who believe they were short-changed on claims payments have filed a proposed class action suit against the insurer, alleging Trumbull has been incorrectly calculating some property claim payments by deducting labor depreciation. The complaint (Grawe v Trumbull) estimates there are "hundreds of thousands" of claimants in 15 states who have potentially been underpaid more than $5 million because of what the plaintiffs allege is an error in actual cash value (ACV) payments. Property owners from Carylyle, Illinois -- Betty and Daniel Grawe -- filed the proposed class action in federal court in Connecticut against Trumbull, a subsidiary of The Hartford. The Hartford declined to comment on the lawsuit when contacted by Insurance Journal. The complaint notes that 15 states by court decision, statute or regulatory order preclude property insurers from depreciating labor in calculating ACV when using the replacement cost value methodology, unless the property insurance forms expressly state that labor is to be depreciated. The states are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, according to the lawsuit. The Grawe policy did not have a "labor depreciation permissive" form. Thus, the complaint maintains, Trumbull should depreciate only material costs, not labor, for purposes of determining ACV. The suit claims "it is reasonable to assume" there are "hundreds of thousands" of other insureds who have been underpaid and that the total amount underpaid likely tops $5 million. The Grawes submitted a property damage claim in May 2021, one that Trumbull agreed was covered by its policy. Trumbull calculated a replacement cost value of $11,307.51, which included the cost of new materials and labor to repair the damage. To arrive at the ACV, it then deduced the $1,000 deductible plus an additional amount of $1,504.70 for depreciation, resulting in a net payment of $8,802.81, according to the complaint. The Grawes contend that the $1,504.70 depreciation included labor as well as materials but they cannot tell the exact amount of the labor depreciation without access to the software Trumbull uses. According to the complaint, Trumbull uses a software, Xactimate (a Verisk product) which allows for the depreciation of materials only, or the depreciation of both materials and labor. The case is similar to one decided by the Arizona Supreme Court last September in Walker v. Auto Owners. That court held that under the Walker's homeowners policy from Auto Owners, the insurer could not depreciate the cost of labor in determining the ACV because of the ambiguity in the policy language over labor depreciation and the reasonable expectations of the insured. The Arizona court noted that courts have differed on this issue, with some courts ruling labor can be depreciated when determining actual cash value and others saying labor may not be depreciated for various reasons. Commenting on that Arizona ruling, Patrick Gorman, a partner with Jones Skelton & Hochuli, suggested that an insurer is unlikely to be able to depreciate labor if the policy language is ambiguous but exactly what language would suffice is unclear. "The language necessary to inform an insured that the insurer may depreciate labor with an ACV payment is still an open question. Future cases might need to answer that question," Gorman wrote of the Arizona situation. [GN] UNITED STATES: Cummins Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States. The case is styled as Shirley Y. M. Cummins, David P. Giamellaro, Carolyn A. Gonzalez, Albert E. Miller, Rosa Carmina Rodriguez, for themselves, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. USA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00308-KCD (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl., March 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay - Back Pay. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert G. Mullendore, Esq. P. O. Box 7187 Missoula, MT 59807 Phone: (406) 239-8300 Email: bob@rgmlaw.com UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Mohr Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOHNATHON MOHR, for himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 230102149, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00731 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that the Defendant employs, agrees, and conspires with Facebook/Meta Platforms to intercept communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania is the owner and operator of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, which owns pennmedicine.org, pennbehavioralhealth.org, and/or uphs.upenn.edu websites as well as the myPennMedicine app.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mark S. Melodia, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Cira Centre, Suite 800, 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (212) 513-3583 E-mail: Mark.Melodia@hklaw.com UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND: Burt Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs SEAN BURT, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order and Judgment dated January 31, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled SEAN BURT and LOGAN THOMSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00465-JJM, in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Providence. The case represents one of many previously consolidated actions in which students alleged that various Rhode Island universities' decisions to transition from in-person to remote academic experiences in response to the COVID-19 pandemic breached the contract that exists between student and university under Rhode Island law. Here, two students, Sean Burt and Logan Thomson, seek to recover from URI three types of fees for themselves, and ultimately a whole class of students at the University. These fees are the student services fee, technology fee, and health services fee. On March 4, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's January 11, 2021 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On September 13, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which the Court granted on January 31, 2023 through an Order signed by Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. The appellate case is captioned as Burt, et al. v. Board of Trustees of the University of Rhode Island, Case No. 23-1188, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Feb. 27, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing Statement, Transcript Report/Order, and Appearance form were due March 13, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SEAN BURT and LOGAN THOMSON, individually and on others similarly situated, are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN 21031 Ventura Blvd., Ste 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 - and - Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N Mall Dr., Ste R108 St George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Ste D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. 1307 Chalkstone Ave Providence, RI 02908-0000 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 - and - Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. LAW, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Ste 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 - and - Robert J. Caron, Esq. 478A Broadway Providence, RI 02909 Telephone: (401) 621-8600 - and - Paul Doolittle, Esq. Eric M. Poulin, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann St Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 Defendant-Appellee BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND is represented by: C. Russell Bengtson, Esq. BENGTSON & JESTINGS LLP 40 Westminster St., Ste 300 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 331-7272 - and - Marina Eudjienii Lev, Esq. T. Scott Mills, Esq. Shon Morgan, Esq. Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq. Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 865 S Figueroa St., 10th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017-0000 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 - and - Todd Joseph Romano, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 1 Citizens Plaza, Ste 1120 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 406-3310 WALMART INC: Chaplin Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled NIKOLAS CHAPLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No. 23CV025397, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 27, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00878-DMR to the proceeding. On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff Chaplin filed the state court action, alleging causes of action on a representative basis for (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2) violation of the False Advertising Law; (3) violation of the Unfair Competition Law; and (4) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges he relied on unlawful and false advertising of the Parent's Choice Gripe Water he purchased from Walmart. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Stuart Plunkett, Esq. Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq. Lisa L. Garcia, Esq. Samantha K. Burdick, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410 Telephone: (213) 576-1000 Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 E-mail: stuart.plunkett@alston.com rachel.lowe@alston.com lisa.garcia@alston.com sam.burdick@alston.com WDI INTERNATIONAL: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against WDI International, Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WDI International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01786 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. WDI International, Inc. -- http://www.wdiinternational.com/-- is a casual Italian restaurant expanding stores in Japan and Internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com YPD SACRAMENTO: Ruiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against YPD Sacramento CJDR, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Yulianna Ruiz, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YPD Sacramento CJDR, LLC, Sacramento CDJR LLC, Chris Shaffer, Mehraban Khajehnouri, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00335424-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 1, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." YPD Sacramento CJDR, LLC is a California Limited-Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Christensen Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELISA CHRISTENSEN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Elisa Christensen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Zions Bancorporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00007-RBM-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for breach of contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of unfair competition laws. On Feb. 4, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Mar. 7, 2022. On Jan. 24, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint through an Order entered by Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro. The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Elisa Christensen v. Zions Bancorporation, Case No. 23-55171, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 24, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Elisa Christensen Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 3, 2023; -- Appellant Elisa Christensen opening brief is due on April 24, 2023; -- Appellee Zions Bancorporation 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] Plaintiff-Appellant ELISA CHRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Berger, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD, PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD, PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 615-3948 Defendant-Appellee ZIONS BANCORPORATION, DBA California Bank & Trust, is represented by: Frederick B. Burnside, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 920 5th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 - and - John D. Freed, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 [*] Human Rights Class Suit in Isle of Man to be Heard on May 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Darbyshire of The Isle of Man Today reports that a class action involving five claimants who allege Jurby jail's strict Covid lockdown regime breached their human rights is heading for a court showdown. A final hearing date is listed for May 15 with five days allocated for the civil case as a small claims and summary matter before Deemster Cope. The Department of Home Affairs is vigorously defending the class action being taken by five claimants who were detained on the isolation wing at Isle of Man Prison in April and May 2020 during the first Covid-19 lockdown. Advocate Ian Kermode, who is leading the class action, said he was still hopeful that a settlement could be reached. He said: 'There are further discussions and negotiations going on and it may be resolved prior to the final hearing.' Ten people who were kept in solitary confinement during the jail's Covid lockdown had originally planned to take the government to court. But a number subsequently dropped out, leaving Karl Cameron, Wayne Mellor, Anne McNamara, Samantha Dunn and Joshua Gray remaining in the class action. They accuse the DHA of negligence and breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights including Article 3 - the absolute right not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment - and Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. The claimants are seeking compensation in a case which, if successful, will be the first time the government has been held to be in breach of Article 3 since the use of birching in 1979. Following the first case of Covid confirmed in the island in March 2020, all new detainees arriving at the jail, including those jailed for breaching emergency powers regulations but also those remanded but not convicted of any offence, were held on an isolation wing for up to 14 days. There were three different regimes at the prison during lockdown, with the second and most restrictive one introduced on April 19 as a result of a detainee testing positive for Covid. Under this 'red' lockdown regime, those on the isolation wing were held 24 hours a day in solitary confinement in the cells. They were not allowed showers or outdoor exercise. Food for the next 24 hours was provided in a single delivery and inmates were denied visits or calls to friends and family for the two weeks. In the House of Keys in May that year, the then Home Affairs Minister Graham Cregeen confirmed that the red regime was lifted on the advice of health professionals when the prison no longer had a Covid-positive detainee. Cregeen told the Keys in May that under the 'red' regime, inmates had a shower on reception and were provided items to allow them to wash from the sink in their cell. They were not allowed to exercise but an in-cell exercise pack was provided. Drinking water was available in the cell, he said, and mobile phones were provided on request to contact an advocate, while messages and letters could be passed to families. 'No detainee, irrespective of their offence, has been subject to degrading or inhumane treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Isle of Man Prison, either prior to or during the current emergency,' he insisted. The Minister later said only those who had other offences such as assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, drugs, theft, alongside breaching of emergency powers spent the whole 14 days in isolation ahead of going to the main prison. In a statement issued when the class action was first mooted, the DHA said: 'The department took action to protect staff, prisoners and their families during the global pandemic. The department rejects claims that prisoners' human rights were breached in doing so and intends to vigorously contest action taken against it.' [GN] [*] Securities Class Action Settlements Hit Record High in 2022 --------------------------------------------------------------- The number of securities class action settlements increased to a 15-year high in 2022, coming off a record 2021 that had seen settlements reach their highest point in more than 10 years, according to a new report released on March 8 by Cornerstone Research. The report, Securities Class Action Settlements–2022 Review and Analysis, also found similarly dramatic increases in the total dollar value of settlements and median settlement amount, "simplified tiered damages," and total assets of defendant issuers. In 2022, the number of securities class action settlements increased to 105, up 21% from the prior year's 87, while the total value of those settlements nearly doubled, from $1.9 billion in 2021 to $3.8 billion. Likewise, the median settlement amount of $13 million increased 46% year-over-year. Median "simplified tiered damages" also reached a record high, growing by 125% to $481 million in 2022 from the previous year. "The historically high number of settlements in 2022 can likely be explained by several factors, including a correspondingly high number of case filings between 2018 and 2020, when over 70% of the 2022 settled cases were filed," said Dr. Laarni T. Bulan, a report coauthor, and principal at Cornerstone Research. "The higher median settlement amount indicates relatively larger settlements overall, which was likely driven, in part, by the record-high level of 'simplified tiered damages,' our rough proxy for potential shareholder losses." The dramatic increase in total settlement dollars was also driven by the eight mega settlements (those exceeding $100 million) reached in 2022. These ranged in value from $100 million to $809.5 million and were more than twice the number in 2021 and the most since 2016. "Settlements in 2022 involved substantially larger defendants and took longer to resolve than in prior years," said Cornerstone Research senior advisor and report coauthor, Dr. Laura E. Simmons. "As we look ahead, the latest trends in securities class action filings suggest we may see a slowing in settlement activity, as well as some shifts in the focus of case allegations, such as towards cryptocurrency-related issues." Contrasting the historic highs seen across many metrics in 2022, settlements in relation to potential shareholder losses were down sharply from 2021. Both the median and average settlement as a percentage of "simplified tiered damages" in 2022 fell to their lowest levels among post–Reform Act years. These levels are consistent with a low presence in 2022 of factors often associated with higher settlement amounts, including SEC actions, criminal charges, and accounting irregularities during the period in which most of the settled cases were filed. Key Trends -- Compared to issuer defendants involved in cases that settled in 2021, defendant firms involved in 2022 settlements were 97% larger, as measured by median total assets. -- The increase in the proportion of "midsize" settlement amounts ($10 million to $50 million) was accompanied by a decrease in the proportion of cases that settled for less than $10 million. -- Median "disclosure dollar losses" reached an all-time high, growing by more than 160% year-over-year. -- The historically low rate of settled cases involving a corresponding action by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) observed in 2021 persisted in 2022, remaining below 9%. [GN] ********* 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 ***