/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230329.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 29, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 64 Headlines 3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Barnes Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: Bray Product Liability Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois 616 COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York 7-ELEVEN INC: 1.15MM Class Deal in Shanahan Suit Has Prelim. Nod AFFORDABLE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blocker Alleges ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Faces ERISA Complaint Over Employees' Fund ALTRIA GROUP: Shelby Schools Sue Over E-Cigarettes Deceptive Ads ALTRIA GROUP: Tammany School Sues Over E-Cigarettes Deceptive Ads AMERICAN HONDA: Burgos Files Suit in C.D. California APS ELECTRIC: Paccha Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ASTRAL BRANDS INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BAJAJ FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Juarez-Ramos Says BART GC: Gomez, Magueyal Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BRIAN KABOT: Burk Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bid to Stay Discovery OK'd Eidler Class Suit BRY'S COMICS INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BUTTAH ENTERPRISES: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE: Amended Skipper Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice CASPARI INC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CASTLE TIRE DISPOSAL: Neff Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CEREBRAL: Hays, Liu Allege Unlawful Disclosure of Protected Info CERTIFIED COMIC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over PFAS Contamination CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces PFAS-Related Class Suit in Ohio CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Drinking Water Contamination CHURCH & DWIGHT: Crosby Sues Over Mislabeled Detergent Products CORTECH WEST: White Suit Stayed; Status Conference Set for Oct. 10 DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces FTSA Class Action Lawsuit in Florida EMPIRE WATER: Bruce Suit Demands Payment of Plumbing Supplies ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Bettis Suit EPIC GAMES: Video Game Addictive to Children, Class Suit Says FIELD ASSET: Faces Parra Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. California FIELD ASSET: Faces Seko Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Vendors FIELD ASSET: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Burgett Class Suit Alleges FIELD ASSET: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Canepa Class Suit Alleges FIELD ASSET: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Murray Class Suit Alleges FIELD ASSET: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Webster Class Suit Alleges FIELD ASSET: Fails to Properly Pay Vendors, Pinto Suit Alleges FIELD ASSET: Romo Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Unreimbursed Expenses FIELD ASSET: Sibilla Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Cal. FIELD ASSET: Turri Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Vendors FIELD ASSET: Underpays Vendors in California, Jones Suit Claims FIREPLACE FREDDIE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Gutierrez Says FLOW HEALTH: Quirino-Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Grants Class Cert. in Defective Vehicles Suit GLEN MILLS: Reaches $3M Settlement in Civil Rights, Abuse Suit GOODRX HOLDINGS: Discloses Patients' Personal Info, Wilson Alleges H.I.S. GUAM: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due March 31 HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Faces Antitrust Suit in New York Court HATCH BANK: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. California HERITAGE PROVIDER: Ortega Files Suit in S.D. California HIGHMARK INC: Zimmerman Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania HOMEMADE TAQUERIA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y. HOT TOPIC: Moody Files Suit in C.D. California HUMANA INC: Woodward Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois INSPIRATION GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tian Suit Alleges INTERNATIONAL DESSERTS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York INVENTION SUBMISSION: $1.5M in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Calhoun Suit IPIC THEATERS: Wolfe Sues Over Workplace Discrimination ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Sulopenem-Related Class Suit Dismissed KET\AL LLC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wates, Suit Alleges KOHL'S CORP: Continues to Defend Shanaphy Class Suit in Wisconsin KYB CORP: Proposed $6-M Class Settlements in Antitrust Suit Okayed KYTE RENTALS: Yazid Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages L'OREAL USA: Largest Product Liability Class Suits Filed in Chicago LEE MEMORIAL: Mack Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of PII and PHI LIBERTY MEDIA: Davenport Suit Removed to S.D. California LINN COUNTY, OR: Gilliland Loses Bid for Class Certification LITTLE PIE COMPANY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LOANDEPOT INC: Ahringer Sues Over Communications Interception LOANDEPOT INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suits in CA LONGEVITY LABS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to June 30 LOWES HOME: Azizpor Wage-and-Hour Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. MAP COMMUNICATIONS: Brutout Seeks Approval of Class Settlement MARGARITAVILLE ENTERPRISES: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y. MARTINS HOME: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MATCO TOOLS: Gardner Files Suit in N.D. Ohio MCKESSON MEDICAL: Class Cert. Expert Discovery Due April 21 MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Causes Cancer, Liposky Alleges MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Causes Cancer, Showalter Alleges MDL 2913: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Richland Parish Says MDL 2913: Pointe Coupee Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette to Youth MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Class Cert & Initial Settlement Approval Sought MI PUEBLO CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baez Suit Alleges MINSK HOSPITALITY: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation MM ENTERPRISES: Smith Files Suit in C.D. California MOELIS & COMPANY: West Palm Sues Over Invalid and Unlawful Terms MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Leonard Class Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice MONOGRAM AEROSPACE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to July 31 MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Costello Files Bid for Class Certification MPM ENTERPRISES INC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MRK FINE ARTS: Hwang Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MSWEST ENTERPRISES: Keith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATIONAL TAX ADVISORY: Wu Sues Over Prerecorded Voice Messages NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Savino Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey NAVY FEDERAL: Joint Bid to Extend Briefing Schedule Partly Granted NEUEHAUS STUDIOS: Tene Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages NEW YORK, NY: All Claims in Murray Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement Terms in Sierra Get Initial OK NEWMARK GROUP: Faces Sherman Act-Related Class Suit NHC.COM LLC: Alvarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION: Prutsman Files Suit in N.D. California NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Barnhouse Files Suit in N.D. Ohio NORLITE LLC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 1 O'CHARLEY'S LLC: Simms FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia O'REILLY AUTO: Class Certification Bid Hearing Continued to June 5 OBI SEAFOODS: Loses Bid for Reconsideration in Paunovic OMNICARE INC: Frazier Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ORLANDO HEALTH: Cyr Files Suit in M.D. Florida PENNSYLVANIA: Claims in Williams v. Wolf of SCI-Houtzdale Dismissed PHILADELPHIA, PA: Reaches Settlement in Civil Unrest Class Suit PRICE WHACK LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT: Kepler Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming PRODUCT LABS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PRUCO LIFE: Moreland Files Bid for Class Certification PTT LLC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PUFFERBELLIES TOYS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York REALPAGE INC: Spencer Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices REALTOR.COM: Loses Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Suit REVENTICS LLC: Lopez Files Suit in D. Colorado RITE AID: Faces Holland Suit Over False Financial Statements RMS PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barnes Alleges S&P GLOBAL: Sued Over Investment Losses in Australian Court SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Court Declines to Relate Mays & Galley Suits SPECTRUM HEALTH: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought STAPLES SUPERSTORE: Stipulation to Amend Class Cert Order OK'd SUN VALLEY: Court Wants Supplement on Deal to Dismiss Pineda Suit SVB FINANCIAL: Kirby McInerney Files Investors Class Action Suit SYNGENTA CROP: River Island Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violation SYNGENTA CROP: Vann Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violation T.D. BROOKS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TD BANK: Filing of Class Status Bid Due May 24, 2024 TOPATO CORPORATION: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phan Class Cert. Support Reply Stricken TRUMP CORPORATION: McKoy, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes UNIFIN INC: Winston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois UNION SECURITY: Parties Seek to Modify Class Certification UNITED STATES: Asylum Seekers File Bid for Class Certification UNITED STATES: Duty to Answer Naltner's Bid for Class Cert. Stayed UNITED STATES: White Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. UPSPRING LLC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York USIC LOCATING: Brandon Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages VANTAGE POINT: Deadline to Reply to Class Cert. Temporarily Stayed VESTRA LABS: Abercrombie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WE BE WINGS: Caudill Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages WELLS FARGO: Judge Denied Motion to Dismiss Ponzi Scheme Class Suit WESTERN MANAGEMENT: Henderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WHITE HOUSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, King Suit Alleges XL FLEET: Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class YUBA COUNTY, CA: 2nd Amended Consent Decree in Hedrick Suit OK'd ZENDESK INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 19 ZENDESK INC: Faces Bailey Suit Over Unfair Merger Agreement ZOLL MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Priddy Alleges ZWANGER & PESIRI: Sali Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices [*] Waite Park May Join Class Action Suit Over Water Contamination ********* 3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Barnes Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- RUSSELL BARNES v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA US, INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC., f/k/a DowDuPont, Inc.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C., INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC., a/k/a Chubb National Foam; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITIES AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., f/n/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01105-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 17, 2023) is a class action alleging that the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce, aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. The Defendants allegedly designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff Russell Barnes in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff Russell Barnes's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff Russell Barnes's training and firefighting activities. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiff has been injured, sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort, economic loss and damages including, but not limited to medical expenses, lost income, and/or other damages. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish active fires during his working career as a civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, and brings this action due to personal injuries sustained as a result of exposure to Defendants AFFF containing PFAS. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Houssiere, III Michael R. Null, Esq. HOUSSIERE, DURANT & HOUSSIERE, LLP 1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800 Houston, TX 77056-3812 Telephone: (713) 626-3700 Facsimile: (713) 626-3709 E-mail: choussiere@hdhtex.com 3M COMPANY: Bray Product Liability Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW S. BRAY v. 3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO LLC, AND AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Mar. 3, 2023. The Southern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-06197-MCR-HTC to the proceeding. The suit is brought over alleged product liability claims against the Defendants for developing the CAEv2, an earplug with two insertable ends developed specifically for the needs of the U.S. military for use as hearing protection in noisy environments. 3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and consumer goods.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Melanie MacKay, Esq. DECHERT LLP 35 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 646-5800 Facsimile: (312) 646-5858 E-mail: Melanie.MacKay@dechert.com 616 COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The 616 Comics LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The 616 Comics LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02391 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The 616 Comics -- https://the616comics.com/ -- offers exclusive variants and hot comic book releases from all publishers.[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 7-ELEVEN INC: 1.15MM Class Deal in Shanahan Suit Has Prelim. Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TANYA SHANAHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-05484-BHS-JRC (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Judge Settle grants preliminary approval of the Parties' Settlement on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement filed with the Motion and attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Craig J. Ackermann in support of the Motion. He finds that the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement appear to be fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Class, and he preliminarily approves the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including terms providing for: a. A Total Settlement Amount of $1.15 million; b. Payment from the Total Settlement Amount of (i) the Class Counsel attorneys' fees of 30% of the Total Settlement Amount ($345,000); (ii) an award of costs to the Class Counsel, not to exceed $20,000; (iii) a Class Representative Service Award to the named Plaintiff, not to exceed $10,000; and (iv) the Settlement Administrator's actual fees and expenses ($26,750). c. Allocation of the Net Settlement Amount to the Settlement Class Members based on their pro rata share, and the calculation and payment of Individual Settlement Payments as provided for in paragraph 7.5.2 of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Settle grants the Parties' request for certification of the following Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3) for the sole and limited purpose of implementing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, subject to the Court's final approval: All individuals who worked for Defendant and/or at a corporate owned 7-Eleven location in Washington State as a convenience store employee in a non-managerial and/or non-exempt position at any time from June 3, 2019 through Dec. 31, 2022 (collectively, Class Members). Judge Settle preliminarily appoints the Plaintiff's counsel, Craig Ackermann, Brian Denlinger, and Avi Kreitenberg of Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C. and Tatiana Hernandez of Law Office of Tatiana Hernandez, P.C., as the Class Counsel and Plaintiff Tanya Shanahan as the Class Representative. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Settlement. It also approves the procedure for the Class Members to opt out of, and to object to, the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Class Notice. Judge Settle confirms CPT Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. Judge Settle directs the mailing of the Class Notice to the Class Members in accordance with the schedule. The Court adopts the following dates and deadlines: a. Within 30 calendar days after the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement - Defendant to provide the class list and class data to the Settlement Administrator. b. Within 45 calendar days after the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement - Settlement Administrator to mail the Class Notices to Class Members. c. 45 calendar days after Class Notice mailing - Deadline for Class Members to submit a date (the "Consideration Period") written Request for Exclusion, to challenge their workweeks data used to calculate Individual Settlement Payments, and/or to file an objection to the Settlement. d. Within 14 days after the expiration of the Consideration Period - Settlement Administrator will prepare a declaration to submit to the Court regarding responses to the Notice of Settlement, including such information as any inability to deliver mailings because of invalid addresses, the number of any Requests for Exclusion, and the number of any Objections. The Class Counsel will file a memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for approval of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses no later than July 20, 2023. It will file a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the final approval of the Settlement Agreement no later than July 20, 2023. A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for Aug. 21, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/33yhmstn from Leagle.com. AFFORDABLE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blocker Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL BLOCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFFORDABLE MEDICAL RESOURCES, INC.; and PRAMOD MATHUR, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01154-JPB (N.D. Ga., March 17, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Blocker was employed by the Defendants as home health aide. AFFORDABLE MEDICAL RESOURCES, INC. provides at home nursing services for the injured, disabled, and elderly. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave, 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Faces ERISA Complaint Over Employees' Fund ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alliancebernstein L.P. (AB) disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2023, that on December 14, 2022, four individual participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of AB filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against AB, current and former members of the Compensation and Workplace Practices Committee of the Board of Directors, and the Investment and Administrative Committees under the AB Profit Sharing Plan. Plaintiffs who seek to represent a class of all participants in the AB Profit Sharing Plan from December 14, 2016 to the present, allege that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA by including proprietary collective investment trusts investment options offered in the AB Profit Sharing Plan. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement, and other equitable relief. Alliancebernstein L.P. is an asset management company based in Tennessee. ALTRIA GROUP: Shelby Schools Sue Over E-Cigarettes Deceptive Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOLS v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:23-cv-01229 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 17, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and similarly situated school districts alleging that the Defendants' marketing strategy, advertising, and product design targets minors, especially school age minors, and has dramatically increased the use of e-cigarettes amongst the student body of the Shelby County Schools. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' conduct has caused many students to become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products. The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State of Tennessee, have redirected significant resources to combat Defendants' deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its students on the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products and to prevent the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette products on the Plaintiffs' property. Accordingly, because e-cigarettes are subject to more relaxed regulation than cigarettes, Altria was able to market its products in ways it could not have done for traditional tobacco products. Altria marketed its e-cigarettes in flavors that would appeal to youth: Strawberry Brulee, Apple Cider, Hazelnut Cream, Spiced Fruit, Piña Colada, Glacier Mint, and Mardi Gras (apparently a mixed berry flavor). Most of these flavors were marketed with the Elite and Apex products, Altria's "pod" e-cigarettes. Altria's push to gain the youth market gained the attention of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On September 12, 2018, the FDA sent a warning letter to Altria, requesting that Altria respond with a "detailed plan" to address and mitigate the widespread use of its e-cigarette products by minors. Allegedly, JLI and Altria worked together to implement their shared goal of growing a youth market in the image of the combustible cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to: (1) create an highly addictive product that users would not associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the lucrative youth market, (2) deceive the public into thinking the product was a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users through targeted marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools, including false and deceptive statements to the public and regulators, to delay regulation of e-cigarettes. The public nuisance created and maintained by the Defendants has resulted, and continues to result, in significant damage and annoyance to the Plaintiff. Again, the FDA and others have recognized that teen vaping is an epidemic and that the Defendants' actions are at the heart of that epidemic, the suit further asserts. Shelby County Schools is a public school district that educates approximately 105,596 pre-kindergarten through 12th-grade students. Altria Group produces and markets tobacco products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. Jade S. Koller, Esq. Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com ALTRIA GROUP: Tammany School Sues Over E-Cigarettes Deceptive Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- ST. TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:23-cv-01232 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 17, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and similarly situated school districts, alleging that the Defendants' marketing strategy, advertising, and product design targets minors, especially school age minors, and has dramatically increased the use of e-cigarettes amongst the student body of the St. Tammany Parish School Board. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' conduct has caused many students to become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State of Louisiana, have redirected significant resources to combat the Defendants' deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its students on the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products and to prevent the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette products on Plaintiffs' property. Because e-cigarettes are subject to more relaxed regulation than cigarettes, Altria was able to market its products in ways it could not have done for traditional tobacco products. Altria marketed its e-cigarettes in flavors that would appeal to youth: Strawberry Brulee, Apple Cider, Hazelnut Cream, Spiced Fruit, Piña Colada, Glacier Mint, and Mardi Gras (apparently a mixed berry flavor). Most of these flavors were marketed with the Elite and Apex products, Altria's "pod" e-cigarettes. Altria's push to gain the youth market gained the attention of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On September 12, 2018, the FDA sent a warning letter to Altria, requesting that Altria respond with a "detailed plan" to address and mitigate the widespread use of its e-cigarette products by minors. Allegedly, JLI and Altria worked together to implement their shared goal of growing a youth market in the image of the combustible cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to: (1) create an highly addictive product that users would not associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the lucrative youth market, (2) deceive the public into thinking the product was a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users through targeted marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools, including false and deceptive statements to the public and regulators, to delay regulation of e-cigarettes. The public nuisance created and maintained by the Defendants has resulted, and continues to result, in significant damage and annoyance to the Plaintiff. Again, the FDA and others have recognized that teen vaping is an epidemic and that the Defendants' actions are at the heart of that epidemic, the suit further asserts. The Plaintiff, St. Tammany Parish School Board is a public school district that educates approximately 37,048 pre-kindergarten through 12th-grade students. Altria Group produces and markets tobacco products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. Jade S. Koller, Esq. Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com AMERICAN HONDA: Burgos Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor Company, Inc. The case is styled as Jordan Burgos, Brian Daniels, Jose Tejada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02128-AB-SK (C.D. Cal., March 21, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. -- http://www.honda.com/-- is the North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9156 Fax: (310) 201-9160 Email: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com APS ELECTRIC: Paccha Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Paccha, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. APS ELECTRIC, INC., MIKHAIL MIKHAYLOV, and JANE DOE a/k/a GIANA, Case No. 1:23-cv-02075 (E.D.N.Y., March 17, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") federal and state law and regulations to Plaintiff who worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and the Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with a wage notice and paystubs as required by the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the New York Commissioner of Labor's Wage Order (the "Wage Orders,"). The Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of failing to pay overtime compensation required by federal and New York State law and regulations to the Plaintiff, who worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of failing to provide the Plaintiff with proper wage notices and paystubs. The Plaintiff regularly worked between 50 and 60 hours per week until March 2020. After March 2020, the Plaintiff worked about 42.5 hours per week. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff at his standard rate of $30 per hour for all hours worked. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff time and a half for all of his hours worked above 40 per week. The Defendants violated both the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to pay the Plaintiff at the proper rate of time-and-a-half for his extensive overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants to work as a mechanic. The Defendants own and operate a facility which provides commercial and residential electrician services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 571-0700 Facsimile: (212) 505-2001 ASTRAL BRANDS INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Astral Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Astral Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02327 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Astral Brands, Inc. -- https://www.astralbrands.com/ -- retails health and beauty products, gourmet foods, and home decor items. The Company provides skincare, body care, and makeup formulations, as well as offers mineral-based makeup and skin care products to consumers, dermatologists, aestheticians, and plastic surgeons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com BAJAJ FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Juarez-Ramos Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the collective action complaint, Martin Juarez-Ramos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Bajaj Food Corp. d/b/a Everyday Savings,1611 Food Mart Inc. d/b/a Dollar Deal, Padam Bajaj, and Rakhi Bajaj, Case No. 1:23-cv-02347 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2023), the Plaintiff alleges that the defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act for failing to pay overtime compensation in the lawful amount for all hours worked in excess of the maximum hours provided for in the FLSA. Mr. Juarez-Ramos seeks to recover from the defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Bajaj Food Corp., is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal place of business located at 1031 Westchester Avenue, Bronx, New York 10604.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com BART GC: Gomez, Magueyal Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- In the collective action complaint, Jose Vazquez Gomez, an individual, and Juan Vazquez Magueyal, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Bart GC Corp., an Illinois corporation, and Krzysztof Mendys, an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-01727 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2023), the plaintiffs claim that the defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance. They assert that the defendants have failed to pay them overtime compensation for hours worked over forty in a workweek. They also claim that the defendants have failed to create, maintain, and preserve complete and accurate payroll records for them and other non-exempt employees. The Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, are current and former construction laborers of defendants' brick construction business. Bart GC Corp. is an Illinois corporation that operates the Bart GC brick construction business located at 519 Home Avenue in Itasca, Illinois and is engaged in brick construction work at various construction site locations throughout Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com BRIAN KABOT: Burk Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brian Kabot, et al. The case is styled as James Burk, other similarly situated persons v. Brian Kabot, Ann Kono, Brian Kabot, Dawn Harms, Edward Freedman, James Hofmockel, James Norris, Juan Manuel Quiroga, Marc Lehmann, Mikhail Kokorich, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2023-0334-PAF (Del. Chancery Ct., March 17, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land for Breach of Fiduciary Duties. Brian Kabot is a member of the Momentus Board of Directors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq. Phone: (302) 654-1888 Fax: (302) 654-2067 - and - Richard D Heins, Esq. Phone: (302) 654-1888 Fax: (302) 654-2067 - and - Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES PO Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 654-1888 Email: tlydon@ashby-geddes.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bid to Stay Discovery OK'd Eidler Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eidler, et al., v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-03962 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to stay discovery pending the Court's class certification ruling. Brookdale Senior owns and operates retirement homes across the United States. The nature of suit states Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). BRY'S COMICS INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bry's Comics, Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bry's Comics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02394 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bry's Comics -- https://bryscomics.com/ -- offering hot comics at a great price and valuable information for free.[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 BUTTAH ENTERPRISES: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buttah Enterprises LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Buttah Enterprises LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02329 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Buttah Enterprises LLC doing business as Buttah Skin -- https://www.buttahskin.com/ -- offers skincare products for women and men.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE: Amended Skipper Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MATTHEW SKIPPER, et al., Plaintiffs v. CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC., Defendant, Civ. No. DLB-21-1022 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants CareFirst's motion to dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint without prejudice. Matthew and Jamie Skipper filed the putative class action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), against CareFirst alleging the insurance company improperly excluded coverage for embryo thawing. The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation and seek a declaratory judgment and damages. In 2016, the Skippers obtained a health insurance policy from CareFirst. The policy provides coverage for "Assisted reproductive technologies," which includes in-vitro fertilization ("IVF"), where less costly methods have failed. Before they were insured with CareFirst, the Skippers sought fertility treatment and attempted several cycles of intrauterine insemination without success. Jamie Skipper then underwent several egg retrieval and fresh transfer cycles, which were also unsuccessful, and the Skippers' physician advised that they should create and freeze embryos for transfer. In 2016, while insured by another carrier, the Skippers created and froze four embryos and transferred two of the frozen embryos, which resulted in a successful pregnancy. In 2018, the Skippers secured prior authorization from CareFirst to proceed with an IVF transfer cycle with the remaining frozen embryos. CareFirst approved coverage for the IVF procedure but denied coverage for thawing the embryos, even though the embryos had to be thawed before the transfer. The Skippers personally covered the $900 cost of thawing. They appealed the denial and filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration ("MIA"). In May 2021, CareFirst sent a new explanation of benefits covering the embryo thawing and issued payment directly to the Skippers' physicians, and the MIA case was closed. The Skippers allege that CareFirst should have reimbursed them directly, rather than make payment to their physicians, and assert they lost the use of the funds for a period of years. The Skippers filed the lawsuit on behalf of a class defined as: All persons in the State of Maryland who, within three years prior to the date of the commencement of this action, did not receive coverage for embryo thawing but did receive it for other IVF-related expenses pursuant to a CareFirst health insurance policy issued in Maryland that purports to cover pregnancy-related benefits. They seek actual damages, attorney's fees and costs, and an award of pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief directing coverage of embryo thawing as part of coverage of other IVF-related expenses. The Plaintiffs allege that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action under CAFA because at least one class member and CareFirst are citizens of different states, there are 100 or more potential class members, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. CareFirst moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged the numerosity or amount in controversy thresholds required under CAFA. The dispute lies in whether the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged numerosity and an amount in controversy over $5 million. The Plaintiffs argue the Court can plausibly infer from the following allegations that there are over 100 class members and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. They allege that CareFirst purports to provide health insurance to 3.4 million individuals and employers in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Northern Virginia. Nationwide, in 2018, 74.3% of more than 107,000 embryo transfer cycles involved frozen embryo transfers. And more than 6,000 embryo transfers were performed in Maryland in 2018. The Skippers paid $900 of their marital funds to cover the cost of thawing. Finally, they concede that the exact number of the members of the Class are unknown to them at this time, but they allege that membership in the Class may be ascertained from the records maintained by CareFirst and that they are informed and believe that the Class includes hundreds of members. Judge Boardman can reasonably infer from these allegations that there are more than 100 potential class members, but the same cannot be said for the amount in controversy. The statistics offered by the Plaintiffs -- that in 2018, 74.3% of more than 107,000 embryo transfer cycles nationwide involved frozen embryo transfers and more than 6,000 embryo transfers were performed in Maryland -- are not enough. Assuming the nationwide percentage of 74.3% applies to the 6,000 embryo transfers in Maryland, it would be plausible to infer that 4,458 frozen embryo transfers were performed in Maryland in 2018. Further assuming those numbers remained consistent over the two subsequent class years, it also would be plausible to infer that approximately 13,374 frozen embryo transfers were performed in Maryland over the three-year class period (4,458 times 3 = 13,374). At $900 in damages per class member, the number of Maryland CareFirst insureds who meet the class definition would have to be at least 5,556 ($5,000,000 divided by $900 = 5,556). That means that 42% of the frozen embryo transfers performed in Maryland during the class period would have to be CareFirst insureds subject to the same policy exclusion as the Skippers (5,556 divided by 13,374 = 0.42 or 42%). Judge Boardman finds that nothing in the second amended complaint allows the Court to plausibly infer that that threshold is met. The Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the amount in controversy. The Court, therefore, does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Perhaps recognizing their pleading deficiencies, the Plaintiffs argue the Court should consider that CareFirst has better access than they do to the information necessary to allege subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Boardman states that CareFirst did not remove the case from state court and invoke jurisdiction under CAFA. Rather, CareFirst has responded to a class action complaint filed in the Court by lodging a facial challenge to the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' subject matter jurisdiction allegations. It is not required to provide evidence to disprove the allegations, and the Court does not consider that it has better access to the information needed to plead subject matter jurisdiction. For these reasons, Judge Boardman concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege subject matter jurisdiction. CareFirst's motion to dismiss is granted, and the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice. A separate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/8y8rjdn7 from Leagle.com. CASPARI INC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caspari, Inc. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Caspari, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02157 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Caspari, Inc. -- https://www.casparionline.com/ -- create finely designed & high quality paper napkins, plates, gift wrap, decor & more.[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 CASTLE TIRE DISPOSAL: Neff Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Castle Tire Disposal, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kyle Neff, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Castle Tire Disposal, LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00336483-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 20, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Castle Tire Disposal, LLC -- https://www.castletirerecycling.com/ -- collect, process, and recycle tire waste.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda L. Fazio, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: amanda@tomorrowlaw.com CEREBRAL: Hays, Liu Allege Unlawful Disclosure of Protected Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action complaint, David Hays and David Liu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerebral, Inc., Case No. 23CV0681 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 20, 2023), the plaintiffs allege that Cerebral disclosed protected health information to Meta, TikTok, and certain undisclosed subcontractors without having obtained required assurances of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Hays and Liu claim that Cerebral have violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the California's Civil Code, and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. For its CIPA violation, Cerebral have implemented tracking technology and secretly transmitted the information to Meta, TikTok, Google, and third party vendors even though plaintiffs and putative class and subclass members did not consent to any of its actions in implementing the wiretaps, or to the wiretapping itself, say the Plaintiffs. Cerebral is headquartered in Walnut, California. It operates cerebral.com, where it provides online therapy and medication management to millions of users.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: jsmith@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com CERTIFIED COMIC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Certified Comic Shop LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Certified Comic Shop LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02395 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Certified Comic Shop -- https://certifiedcomic.shop/ -- is an online headquarters for buying graded comic books from CGC, CBCS & PGX.[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 CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over PFAS Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2023, that in South Carolina, a putative class action was filed in March 2022 in the state court against 3M, EID and the company alleging PFAS contamination from a former textile plant located in Society Hill, South Carolina which allegedly used PFAS containing textile treatment chemicals supplied by the defendants. The lawsuit alleges negligence, trespass, strict liability, and nuisance and seeks monetary damages, including property diminution, and injunctive relief, including water treatment and remediation, as well as punitive damages. The matter has been removed to federal court. The Chemours Company is a leading, global provider of performance chemicals based in Delaware CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces PFAS-Related Class Suit in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2023, that in Ohio, a putative class action was filed against several defendants including 3M, EIDP Inc., and Chemours seeking class action status for U.S. residents having a detectable level of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in their blood serum. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a "PFAS Science Panel." In March 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's class certification and certified a class covering anyone subject to Ohio laws having minimal levels of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) plus at least one other PFAS in their blood. The court requested further briefing on whether the class should be extended to include other states that recognize the claims for relief filed in the action. The defendants, including EID and Chemours, jointly filed a petition to appeal the class certification decision and in September 2022 the petition was granted and appellate review is proceeding. The Chemours Company is a leading, global provider of performance chemicals based in Delaware. CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Drinking Water Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2023, that in Alabama, a purported class action was filed in July 2022 in Alabama federal court on behalf of certain drinking water utilities against 3M, EID, Corteva, and the company alleging contamination of drinking water. he complaints allege negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance, and trespass. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The Chemours company is a leading, global provider of performance chemicals based in Delaware. CHURCH & DWIGHT: Crosby Sues Over Mislabeled Detergent Products --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action complaint, Deborah Crosby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01735 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2023), Crosby alleges that Church & Dwight Co misrepresented and/or omitted the attributes and qualities of Xtra detergent, which has a large print number of loads "116" in the lower-left corner of the front label in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the State Consumer Fraud Acts Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Ms. Crosby read and relied on the number of loads on the front label, i.e., "116," which she believed was relevant to her as a typical American who does full or large loads of laundry. However, she was unable to do the number of loads of laundry promised by the front label number, as she was only able to do no more than half as many as this number, the Plaintiff asserts. Church & Dwight Co. Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Ewing, Mercer County, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com CORTECH WEST: White Suit Stayed; Status Conference Set for Oct. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CURTIS WHITE, on behalf of himself and all similarly aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. CORTECH WEST STAFFING, LLC, THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS NA, INC., THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES NA, Inc., TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2-22-CV-02270-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Stay Entire Action. The Plaintiff and Defendants CorTech West Staffing, LLC, Thyssenkrupp Materials NA. Inc. and Thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services NA, Inc., and Tesla, Inc. dba Tesla Motors, Inc., submit their Joint Stipulation to Stay Entire Action. On Oct. 24, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the Class Action Complaint for Damages, Penalties And For Injunctive Relief against the Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin. On Dec. 19, 2022, the Defendants removed the Plaintiff's Complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Absent an order granting the stipulated stay, the Defendants currently anticipate filing a motion to compel individual arbitration because they maintain that the Plaintiff entered into an arbitration agreement that requires him to submit his claims to arbitration and the Plaintiff disagrees, maintaining that he did not enter into an arbitration agreement and that, if he did, the agreement is unenforceable. By entering into the Joint Stipulation to Stay Entire Action, the Defendant expressly reserves and does not waive any right to file a motion to compel arbitration. The Parties agree that it will conserve judicial and Party resources and promote the orderly administration of justice for the Court to stay the case because they recently agreed to attempt to resolve the case through private mediation. The Parties are now meeting and conferring on mediator selection and expect to have completed mediation within six months. In light of their agreement to mediate, they would like to avoid burdening the Court and to avoid spending the time and money associated with litigation in the event that they can resolve the case in mediation. Therefore, to conserve the judicial resources of the Court and the Parties' resources, the Parties stipulate to a voluntary stay of the litigation pending mediation. They request that the Court stays the case in its entirely and set a status conference for approximately six months from the date of the stipulation. Having reviewed the Parties' Joint Stipulation, Judge Shubb grants the Stipulation. The Scheduling Conference is reset for Oct. 10, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. All proceedings case are stayed until that date. A joint status report will be filed no later than Sept. 26, 2023, in accordance with the Court's Order Re: Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed Dec. 20, 2022 (Docket No. 3). A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/23t2mjxk from Leagle.com. CHAD D. GREESON -- cgreeson@littler.com -- NICHOLAS GIOIELLO -- ngioiello@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Walnut Creek, CA, Attorneys for Defendants THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES NA, INC. and THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS NA, INC. TINA M. JACQUEZ -- tjacquez@slfesq.com -- SOLTMAN, LEVITT, FLAHERTY & WATTLES LLP, Thousand Oaks, CA, Attorneys for Defendant CORTECH WEST STAFFING, LLC. BRIAN BERRY -- brian.berry@morganlewis.com -- ANDREA FELLION -- andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant CORTECH WEST STAFFING, LLC. B. JAMES FITZPATRICK, LAURA L. FRANKLIN, FITZPATRICK & SWANSTON, Salinas, CA, LARRY W. LEE, HOWARD L. MAGEE, SHALOM "CHRISTINE" CHOO, DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C., Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff CURTIS WHITE. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces FTSA Class Action Lawsuit in Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- Hi TCPAWorld! The Baroness here. Back from LeadsCon in Vegas and here to share some big news. Domino's Pizza gets hit with a major FTSA class action! Some background facts. A man by the name of Jonathan Hammonds filed suit against Domino's Pizza in Brevard County, Florida. Hammond alleges "[f]or at least the past year, [Domino's] has bombarded [him] with telephonic sales calls on [his] cellular telephone number . . . without his prior express written consent." One of the text reads: "Happy Holidays, make all your pizza dreams come true with Domino's Perfect Combo Deal for $19.99. Code 9213." Hammond further alleges that Domino's utilized an automated system that automatically selected and dialed his and the class members' telephone numbers. Hammonds seeks to represent the following class: All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff. Although the case was originally filed in state court, Domino's removed the case to federal court based on the Class Action Fairness Act to the Middle District of Florida. Since the case was just removed a few days ago, the case is still in its nascent stage. It will be interesting to see how this case pans out. Will Domino's respond aggressively? Stay tuned for more updates! Case no.: 6:23-CV-00503 [GN] EMPIRE WATER: Bruce Suit Demands Payment of Plumbing Supplies ------------------------------------------------------------- In the complaint, Bruce Supply Corp., on behalf of itself and all other persons similarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts of which Empire Water Main & Sewer Inc., is a trustee v. Empire Water Main & Sewer Inc. and Francisco Salgado, Case No. 508487/2023 (N.Y., March 20, 2023), the Plaintiff alleges that Empire Water Main & Sewer Inc. failed to pay $44,205.58, the remaining balance of payment for the sale of plumbing supplies in violation of the Article 9 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from these Defendants for their breach of trust obligations in taking monies from the said trust for themselves and for making and consenting to diversions of said trust funds to persons, firms or corporations not authorized to receive the proceeds of said trust fund. Empire Water Main & Sewer Inc. is engaged in the contracting business, furnishing labor and materials in connection with private contracts involving the improvement of private property in the state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marshall M. Stern, Esq. MARSHALL M. STERN, P.C. 17 Cardiff Court Huntington Station, NY 11746 Telephone: (631) 427-0101 ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Bettis Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bettis v. Envision Healthcare Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01112 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to Lead the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants seek to file a sur-reply to address new arguments and new evidence that Lead the Plaintiffs raised for the first time in their Reply to the Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Lead the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the rebuttal report of their expert, Dr. Feinstein. Lead the Plaintiffs' arguments and evidence were not presented in their initial Motion for Class Certification, and thus the Defendants have not had the opportunity to address them. The suit involves ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. Envision Healthcare provides health care services. The Hospital offers surgery, pharmacy, medical imaging, and emergency care. A copy of the the Defendants' motion dated March 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JUYNr5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Britt K. Latham, Esq. Kathryn Hannen Walker, Esq. Joseph B. Crace, Jr., Esq. Briana T. Sprick Schuster, Esq. BASS BERRY & SIMS PLC 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-6200 E-mail: blatham@bassberry.com kwalker@bassberry.com jcrace@bassberry.com Briana.sprick.schuster@bassberry.com - and - Peter E. Kazanoff, Esq. Craig S. Waldman, Esq. Amy L. Dawson, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-3525 E-mail:pkazanoff@stblaw.com cwaldman@stblaw.com amy.dawson@stblaw.com EPIC GAMES: Video Game Addictive to Children, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- cbc.ca reports that a Vancouver parent has launched a proposed class-action lawsuit against the makers of Fortnite, saying the popular video game is designed to be "as addictive as possible" for children. In the lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the plaintiff - identified only by the initials "A.B." - says her son downloaded Fortnite in 2018 and "developed an adverse dependence on the game." The game, with 400 million players worldwide, is free to download and play but sells things like character costumes and dance moves for money. The statement of claim says the game incorporates several intentional design choices, such as offering rewards for completing challenges and making frequent updates, which encourages players to return repeatedly. It says Fortnite creator Epic Games enriches itself by making content and customization options purchasable via an in-game currency, which is purchased with real cash. The class-action lawsuit would still need approval from the court, and none of the allegations have been proven in court. The plaintiff is seeking damages alleging the game breaches the B.C. Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and for "unjust enrichment" and medical expenses for psychological or physical injuries, among other claims. Epic Games says it will fight allegations In an emailed statement to CBC News, Epic Games communications director Natalie Muñoz says the plaintiff's claims don't reflect how Fortnite operates and ignore all the measures parents can take to control their children's gaming experience. She says one of these measures are "cabined accounts," which mean children under age 13 will have to provide their parents' email address in order to access certain features of the game. "We will fight these inflammatory allegations," said Muñoz in the written statement. The lawsuit would cover all persons affected by Fortnite in Canada except Quebec, where in February, Epic Games lost its attempt to appeal the court's decision there to authorize a similar class-action suit. Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst based in London, Ont., says the B.C. lawsuit is significant because it could set a legal precedent for other common law jurisdictions in Canada and beyond. "What happens here with this latest filing will, in fact, influence other potential future lawsuits filed against not only this game company but other game companies within Canada and beyond any other country that follows common law," he said. Epic Fined $520M US in December Epic Games, headquartered in Cary, N.C., agreed in December to pay $520 million US in fines and rebates for tricking millions of players into making unintentional purchases in the game, which was the heftiest penalty ever obtained by a company for violating rules of the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The American regulator said the company would pay $275 million US for violating a law known as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by deploying design tricks to get kids to download in-game content that costs real-world money. The company will also pay $245 million to refund consumers for what they spent on the downloaded content. In addition to the fine for the content downloads, the FTC says Epic Games also violated COPPA by disregarding privacy concerns. The game's default settings allow for text and voice communications for users. That allowed children and teens to be bullied, threatened, harassed and exposed to dangerous and psychologically traumatizing issues such as suicide while on Fortnite, the FTC said. "The company also required parents who requested that their children's personal information be deleted to jump through unreasonable hoops and sometimes failed to honour such requests," the FTC said. Monitor kids, train them how to self-regulate: experts Levy says as a father of a young child who plays Fortnite, he would recommend other parents to pay close attention to their offspring's gaming behaviour in order to protect them from bullying on gaming platforms. "Don't just assume that because you as a parent aren't a tech expert or aren't a video gamer that you can't have an important role to play with your child," he said. "Make sure that you maintain that open dialogue all the way through, so they know they can come to you if they do have any questions or problems." Director Matthew Johnson of MediaSmarts, a non-profit centre for digital and media literacy based in Ottawa, recommends parents give their kids gift cards or credit cards with a small pre-paid limit in order to restrict in-game purchases. Johnson also asks parents to train their children how to manage their on-screen time and personal finances. "It's important that they have learned the self-regulation skills they need," he said. "When they're no longer subject to our rules, they're able to manage their own time and manage their own spending."[GN] FIELD ASSET: Faces Parra Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE PARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC.; FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC; XOME FIELD SERVICES LLC; CYPREXX SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01219 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse business expenses, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a vendor from February 25, 2009 until about December 2011. Field Assets Services, Inc. is a provider of property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, headquartered in Austin, Texas. Field Asset Services LLC was a successor in interest to Field Asset Services, Inc. Xome Field Services LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. Cyprexx Services, LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com FIELD ASSET: Faces Seko Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Vendors ---------------------------------------------------------- MIKE SEKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC.; FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC; XOME FIELD SERVICES LLC; CYPREXX SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01224 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse business expenses, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a vendor from December 20, 2006 until about July 2011. Field Assets Services, Inc. is a provider of property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, headquartered in Austin, Texas. Field Asset Services LLC was a successor-in-interest to Field Asset Services, Inc. Xome Field Services LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. Cyprexx Services, LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com FIELD ASSET: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Burgett Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Claudia Burgett, an individual v. Field Asset Services, Inc.; Field Asset Services, LLC; Xome Field Services LLC; Cyprexx Services, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:23-cv-01251-LB (N.D. Cal., Mar. 17, 2023) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wage pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff contends that FAS evaded responsibility for paying the Plaintiff's wages and employment benefits by purporting to hire her as a "vendor" and misclassifying her as an "independent contractor," while retaining significant control over the work that she performed for FAS. As a result, FAS does not require W-4 forms from its workers, and does not treat its workers as W-2 employees. FAS does not pay any payroll or other taxes on behalf of its workers; instead, it generally pays workers, after it unilaterally determines whether the work has been done to its specifications, within 30 days of the worker documenting the work and requesting payment. FAS generally pays by the job, not the hour, no matter how many hours a job takes. The Plaintiff regularly worked over eight hours in a day and over forty hours in a week and, at times, worked over twelve hours in a day and/or in excess of eight hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek. But, the Defendants allegedly never paid the Plaintiff overtime pay that she was owed. FAS does not pay overtime or double time, even though it requires that jobs be completed within 72 hours and is aware that individuals are regularly working more than eight hours, and sometimes 12 hours, per day, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, statutory damages, liquidated damages, statutory and civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post- judgment interest. The Plaintiff was an individual resident of Yuba City, California who performed work for FAS at various properties throughout the state of California. FAS provides property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, including California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com jemiller@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com FIELD ASSET: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Canepa Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- William Canepa, an individual v. Field Asset Services, Inc.; Field Asset Services, LLC; Xome Field Services LLC; Cyprexx Services, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:23-cv-01253 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2023) is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wage pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff contends that FAS evaded responsibility for paying the Plaintiff's wages and employment benefits by purporting to hire him as a "vendor" and misclassifying him as an "independent contractor," while retaining significant control over the work that he performed for FAS. As a result, FAS does not require W-4 forms from its workers, and does not treat its workers as W-2 employees. FAS does not pay any payroll or other taxes on behalf of its workers; instead, it generally pays workers, after it unilaterally determines whether the work has been done to its specifications, within 30 days of the worker documenting the work and requesting payment. FAS generally pays by the job, not the hour, no matter how many hours a job takes. The Plaintiff regularly worked over eight hours in a day and over forty hours in a week and, at times, worked over twelve hours in a day and/or in excess of eight hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek. But, the Defendants allegedly never paid the Plaintiff overtime pay that he was owed. FAS does not pay overtime or double time, even though it requires that jobs be completed within 72 hours and is aware that individuals are regularly working more than eight hours, and sometimes 12 hours, per day, the suit says. FAS also does not reimburse workers for any reasonable business expenses that are necessary to perform the work. FAS requires workers to procure and pay for general liability insurance, workers' compensation insurance, smart phones, computers, all tools and equipment necessary to complete the maintenance and repair work detailed on work orders, and all fees, such as business license fees and dump fees, that are required to perform the work. FAS also does not provide any transportation to or from the various worksites, which change on a regular basis, and does not reimburse for any mileage driven, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, statutory damages, liquidated damages, statutory and civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post- judgment interest. The Plaintiff is an individual resident of Lodi, California who has performed work for FAS at various properties in the Stockton Area. FAS provides property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, including California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com jemiller@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com FIELD ASSET: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Murray Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Ancil Murray, an individual v. Field Asset Services, Inc.; Field Asset Services, LLC; Xome Field Services LLC; Cyprexx Services, LLC; and DOES 1-10,, Case No. 3:23-cv-01261 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 17, 2023) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wage pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff contends that FAS evaded responsibility for paying the Plaintiff's wages and employment benefits by purporting to hire him as a "vendor" and misclassifying him as an "independent contractor," while retaining significant control over the work that he performed for FAS. As a result, FAS does not require W-4 forms from its workers, and does not treat its workers as W-2 employees. FAS does not pay any payroll or other taxes on behalf of its workers; instead, it generally pays workers, after it unilaterally determines whether the work has been done to its specifications, within 30 days of the worker documenting the work and requesting payment. FAS generally pays by the job, not the hour, no matter how many hours a job takes, the lawsuit alleges. The Plaintiff regularly worked over eight hours in a day and over forty hours in a week and, at times, worked over twelve hours in a day and/or in excess of eight hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek. But, the Defendants allegedly never paid the Plaintiff overtime pay that he was owed. FAS does not pay overtime or double time, even though it requires that jobs be completed within 72 hours and is aware that individuals are regularly working more than eight hours, and sometimes 12 hours, per day. FAS also does not reimburse workers for any reasonable business expenses that are necessary to perform the work. FAS requires workers to procure and pay for general liability insurance, workers' compensation insurance, smart phones, computers, all tools and equipment necessary to complete the maintenance and repair work detailed on work orders, and all fees, such as business license fees and dump fees, that are required to perform the work. FAS also does not provide any transportation to or from the various worksites, which change on a regular basis, and does not reimburse for any mileage driven, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, statutory damages, liquidated damages, statutory and civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post- judgment interest. The Plaintiff is an individual resident of Victorville, California who has performed work for FAS at various properties in the Southern California Area. FAS provides property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, including California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com jemiller@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com FIELD ASSET: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Webster Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- James Webster, an individual v. Field Asset Services, Inc.; Field Asset Services, LLC; Xome Field Services LLC; Cyprexx Services, LLC; and DOES 1-10,, Case No. 3:23-cv-01254 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 17, 2023) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wage pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff contends that FAS evaded responsibility for paying the Plaintiff's wages and employment benefits by purporting to hire him as a "vendor" and misclassifying him as an "independent contractor," while retaining significant control over the work that he performed for FAS. As a result, FAS does not require W-4 forms from its workers, and does not treat its workers as W-2 employees. FAS does not pay any payroll or other taxes on behalf of its workers; instead, it generally pays workers, after it unilaterally determines whether the work has been done to its specifications, within 30 days of the worker documenting the work and requesting payment. FAS generally pays by the job, not the hour, no matter how many hours a job takes, the lawsuit alleges. The Plaintiff regularly worked over eight hours in a day and over 40 hours in a week and, at times, worked over 12 hours in a day and/or in excess of eight hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek. But, the Defendants allegedly never paid the Plaintiff overtime pay that he was owed. FAS does not pay overtime or double time, even though it requires that jobs be completed within 72 hours and is aware that individuals are regularly working more than eight hours, and sometimes 12 hours, per day. FAS also does not reimburse workers for any reasonable business expenses that are necessary to perform the work. FAS requires workers to procure and pay for general liability insurance, workers' compensation insurance, smart phones, computers, all tools and equipment necessary to complete the maintenance and repair work detailed on work orders, and all fees, such as business license fees and dump fees, that are required to perform the work. FAS also does not provide any transportation to or from the various worksites, which change on a regular basis, and does not reimburse for any mileage driven, the lawsuit added. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, statutory damages, liquidated damages, statutory and civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post- judgment interest. The Plaintiff was an individual resident of California who performed work for FAS at various properties in the High Desert and Southern California Areas. FAS provides property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, including California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com jemiller@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com FIELD ASSET: Fails to Properly Pay Vendors, Pinto Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK PINTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC.; FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC; XOME FIELD SERVICES LLC; CYPREXX SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01223 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse business expenses, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a vendor from May 2008 until about May 2011. Field Assets Services, Inc. is a provider of property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, headquartered in Austin, Texas. Field Asset Services LLC was a successor in interest to Field Asset Services, Inc. Xome Field Services LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. Cyprexx Services, LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com FIELD ASSET: Romo Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Unreimbursed Expenses -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ROMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC.; FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC; XOME FIELD SERVICES LLC; CYPREXX SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01212 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse business expenses, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a vendor from 2007 until about 2010. Field Assets Services, Inc. is a provider of property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, headquartered in Austin, Texas. Field Asset Services LLC was a successor in interest to Field Asset Services, Inc. Xome Field Services LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. Cyprexx Services, LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com FIELD ASSET: Sibilla Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL SIBILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC.; FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC; XOME FIELD SERVICES LLC; CYPREXX SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01215 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse business expenses, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a vendor from August 7, 2007 until about 2010. Field Assets Services, Inc. is a provider of property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, headquartered in Austin, Texas. Field Asset Services LLC was a successor in interest to Field Asset Services, Inc. Xome Field Services LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. Cyprexx Services, LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com FIELD ASSET: Turri Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Vendors --------------------------------------------------------------- EUGENE TURRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC.; FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC; XOME FIELD SERVICES LLC; CYPREXX SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01220 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse business expenses, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a vendor from May 6, 2008 until about mid-2011. Field Assets Services, Inc. is a provider of property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, headquartered in Austin, Texas. Field Asset Services LLC was a successor in interest to Field Asset Services, Inc. Xome Field Services LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. Cyprexx Services, LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com FIELD ASSET: Underpays Vendors in California, Jones Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CARY JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC.; FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC; XOME FIELD SERVICES LLC; CYPREXX SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01218 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime, failure to reimburse business expenses, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a vendor from the spring of 2007 until about September 2011. Field Assets Services, Inc. is a provider of property preservation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and remodeling services to various foreclosed properties throughout the United States, headquartered in Austin, Texas. Field Asset Services LLC was a successor in interest to Field Asset Services, Inc. Xome Field Services LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. Cyprexx Services, LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Brandon, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. Casey T. Yamasaki, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Ste. 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: cgsekino@millershah.com ctyamasaki@millershah.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Cassidy A. Clark, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP 475 14th Street, Ste. 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 Facsimile: (415) 658-7758 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com cassidy@os-legal.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com FIREPLACE FREDDIE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Gutierrez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FERNANDO GUTIERREZ v. FIREPLACE FREDDIE, INC.; FRED RENO; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV05987 (Cal. Super., Mar. 17, 2023) seeks to recover Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees' minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Fireplace Freddie did not provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they were entitled for all work performed and did not compensate him and others for all hours worked. This is so because the Plaintiff and others consistently worked "off the clock" in that the company had a policy of rounding down hours to the detriment of employees. In addition, and to the extent that the Plaintiff performed work obligations during any alleged meal period, it would be akin to a minimum wage violation since the Plaintiff and others were not paid for all hour worked, the suit claims. Further, Fireplace Freddie also failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees overtime, even though they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12 hours per day, and/or 40 hours per week throughout their employment. This is so because Fireplace Freddie did not factor in the "off the clock" hours for purposes of overtime payment. In addition, any bonuses or incentive payments were not factored into the employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the correct and accurate overtime rate of pay, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from February 2021 until March 2022. During his employment tenure, the Plaintiff was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee. Fireplace Freddie is a family owned and operated fireplace & chimney repair company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 FLOW HEALTH: Quirino-Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flow Health Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ariel A. Quirino-Flores, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Flow Health Services, LLC, Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 34-2023-00336188-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 14, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Flow Health -- https://www.flowhealth.com/ -- is focused on the treatment and prevention of disease offering novel diagnostics that drive a personalized approach to improve patient health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 818-456-6168 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com - and - Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-300-1705 GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Grants Class Cert. in Defective Vehicles Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie L. LaReau at Detroit Free Press reports that a judge has granted class action certification to a lawsuit involving 39 plaintiffs across 26 states - including Michigan - that accuses General Motors of knowingly selling cars with faulty transmissions. David Lawson, U.S. District judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted class certification in the case of Speerly v. GM, which represents the owners of various GM vehicles who have one of two models of eight-speed automatic transmissions - the GM 8L90 or 8L45 - made between 2015 and March 1, 2019. The transmissions lurch and shutter when driving, creating a safety hazard, the lawsuit said. "General Motors knowingly sold over 800,000 eight-speed transmission vehicles, which they knew to be defective for years, and yet made the business decision not to tell its customers before purchase," said Ted Leopold, partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed lead counsel for the class action case. "Dealers were directed to tell the customers that harsh shifts were 'normal' or 'characteristic.' Such decision making is both highly irresponsible and emblematic of what GM believes it can get away with." GM spokeswoman Maria Raynal said, "We respectfully decline comment, as is generally our practice with ongoing litigation." The plaintiffs said the automatic transmissions in their vehicles occasionally will "slip, buck, kick, jerk and harshly engage," according to court order from the judge. The plaintiffs said the transmission "causes the vehicle to perform erratically, such as with sudden or delayed acceleration; the vehicles may be unsafe to drive." Some drivers reported the gear shifting so violently that it felt as if they were hit by another car, Leopold said in a statement. The attorney for the plaintiffs also said internal company documents show that GM had determined the "startling effect" of the harsh shifts can create a safety issue. The vehicles also have a second transmission defect that causes them to "shudder" at highway speeds, the lawsuit said. The court order listed the following vehicles with the alleged faulty transmissions: 2015 through 2019 model year Chevrolet Silverado 2017-19 Chevrolet Colorado 2015-19 Chevrolet Corvette 2016-19 Chevrolet Camaro 2015-19 Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV 2016-19 Cadillac ATS, ATS-V, CTS, CT6, and CTS-V 2015-19 GMC Sierra, Yukon, Yukon XL, and Yukon Denali XL 2017-19 GMC Canyon The plaintiffs allege GM violated state consumer protection statutes by knowingly putting "defective" cars on the road. There have been no deaths or injuries, said Leopold. The plaintiffs are seeking either compensation for alleged overpayment for defective cars at the point of sale, or recovery of the cost of replacing defective components or their entire transmissions, he said. The states certified include Michigan. A second lawsuit against GM for vehicles with 8L transmissions is also underway in the case of Battle v. General Motors. That case involves 8L vehicles made after March 1, 2019, through model year 2022, when GM replaced the automatic transmission fluid that caused the shudder problem.[GN] GLEN MILLS: Reaches $3M Settlement in Civil Rights, Abuse Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In January 2023, a settlement fund was established for former Glen Mills Schools students. Those who are eligible may receive cash payments, compensatory education services, or a combination of these remedies. Education Law Center, Juvenile Law Center, and Dechert LLP filed the proposed class action lawsuit in April 2019 on behalf of former students and their parents. The complaint was filed in the wake of the closing of the facility by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services in response to findings of pervasive abuse and intimidation against students by Glen Mills Schools residential staff and leadership. The lawsuit alleged significant violations of the civil rights of former students, including that students were unsafe, subjected to extreme and sustained physical and emotional abuse, and deprived of any meaningful education. The abuse had a particularly dire impact on Black students, sent to Glen Mills in disproportionate numbers, as well as students with disabilities and special education needs, whose educational rights were ignored. Visit GlenMillsSettlement.org to find some questions and answers about the settlement fund and agreement, including information about eligibility, as well as background information about the Glen Mills Schools and the class action lawsuit. Updates, application forms, and more details about how to apply will be available on this website soon. Check back for more information. Former students and their families who have additional questions or want to learn more about whether a former student is eligible for settlement funds created by the CCIU agreement may email Help@GlenMillsSettlement.org or leave a message on the Glen Mills Settlement Helpline at 267-515-6853. [GN] GOODRX HOLDINGS: Discloses Patients' Personal Info, Wilson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action complaint, Hollis Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc., Criteo Corp., Meta Platforms, Inc., and Google LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01293 (N.D. Cal., Wilson alleges that the defendants have violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, this sensitive personal information communicated through the GoodRx Platform, including health information relating to medical treatments and prescriptions, was disclosed to and intercepted by some of the largest advertising and social media companies in the country, including Criteo, Meta and Google. The Plaintiff and class members believed their personal information, including health information relating to their medical conditions, symptoms, and prescriptions, would not be shared or disclosed. However, this sensitive personal information communicated through the GoodRx Platform, including health information relating to medical treatments and prescriptions, was allegedly disclosed to and intercepted by some of the largest advertising and social media companies in the country, including the Criteo, Meta and Google, with GoodRx's knowledge and consent, says the suit. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Santa Monica, California. It is a combination of telehealth and prescription coupon company. Founded in 2011, GoodRx claims that its mission is to build better ways for people to find the right care at the best price.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway E Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Tel: (856) 772-7200 Fax: (856) 210-9088 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com H.I.S. GUAM: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSAMU IGARASHI, v. H.I.S. GUAM INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025 (D. Guam), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Bordallo entered a revised trial scheduling order as follows: -- A motion to Certify Class under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 (c) shall be filed no later than March 31, 2023. -- A motion to Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 (g) shall be filed no later than April 7, 2023. -- The parties are ordered to timely make all expert disclosures and rebuttals thereto such that expert discovery shall be completed by July 24, 2023. -- All motions under the discovery rules shall be filed no later than July 26, 2023. -- Dispositive Motions shall be filed no later than August 22, 2023. -- The parties shall each file a trial brief no later than October 6, 2023. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3llcC8Q at no extra charge.[CC] HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Faces Antitrust Suit in New York Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- News Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2023, that beginning in February 2021, a number of purported class action complaints have been filed in the N.Y. District Court against Amazon.com, Inc. and certain publishers, including the company's subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers, LLC, alleging violations of antitrust and competition laws. The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. In September 2022, the N.Y. District court granted Amazon and the Publishers' motions to dismiss the complaints but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both cases in November 2022, and in January 2023, Amazon and the Publishers filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. News Corporation is a global diversified media and information services company. HATCH BANK: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hatch Bank. The case is styled as Yolanda Bradford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hatch Bank, Case No. 3:23-cv-00465-JM-BLM (S.D. Cal., March 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Hatch -- https://hatchbank.com/ -- is a digital-first bank improving how people save, spend, borrow, and send money by creating strategic relationships with fintech businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marie Noel Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 700 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 511 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 358-7155 Email: mappel@forthepeople.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 358-6913 Fax: (415) 358-6293 Email: mram@forthepeople.com HERITAGE PROVIDER: Ortega Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heritage Provider Network, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sergio Ortega, Lequeint Cole, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Heritage Provider Network, Inc., Regal Medical Group, Inc., Lakeside Medical Organization, a Medical Group, Inc., ADOC Acquisition Co., A Medical Group, Inc., Greater Covina Medical Group Inc., Arizona Health Avantage, Inc. doing business as: Arizona Priority Care, AZPC Clinics, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00331-AB-SP (S.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Heritage Provider Network Inc. -- https://www.heritageprovidernetwork.com/ -- operates as a health care services firm. The Company offers preventive healthcare services including employer-based health education programs, vaccinations, and fitness programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Douglas McLean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 376-3739 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: kmclean@sirillp.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Steven D. Cohen, Esq. SIRI AND GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com scohen@sirillp.com HIGHMARK INC: Zimmerman Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highmark, Inc. The case is styled as David Zimmerman, Channelle Zimmerman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Highmark, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00462-NR (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Highmark -- https://highmark.com/ -- is an American non-profit healthcare company and Integrated Delivery Network based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Bagin, Esq. WIENAND & BAGIN First & Market Building 100 First Avenue, Suite 1010 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 281-1110 Fax: (412) 281-8481 Email: christian@wienandandbagin.com HOMEMADE TAQUERIA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homemade Taqueria Corp. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Homemade Taqueria Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-02051 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Homemade Taqueria Corp. -- https://www.homemadetaqueria.com/ -- is a Mexican restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. 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 HOT TOPIC: Moody Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hot Topic, Inc. The case is styled as Catherine Moody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hot Topic, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00447-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., March 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Hot Topic, Inc. -- http://www.hottopic.com/-- is an American retail chain specializing in counterculture-related clothing and accessories, as well as licensed music.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Kyungsik Cho, Esq. Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. DOVEL AND LUNER 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Fax: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com HUMANA INC: Woodward Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humana, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Antionette Woodward, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Humana, Inc., Healthubb, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00979 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Humana Inc. -- https://www.humana.com/ -- is a for-profit American health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Fax: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 176 Federal, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 738-7080 Email: ted@broderick-law.com INSPIRATION GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tian Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BAOQUAN TIAN; XUNHAI LIU; and SHIJIE FANG, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSPIRATION GROUP INC.; and ENJIA YANG, Defendants, Case No. 705799/2023 (N.Y. Sup., March 17, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as drivers. INSPIRATION GROUP INC. is engaged as a transportation company located at New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongjin Bae, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718)353-8588 Email: ybae@hanglaw.com INTERNATIONAL DESSERTS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Desserts and Delicacies. The case is styled as Omar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. International Desserts and Delicacies, Case No. 1:23-cv-02214 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. International Desserts & Delicacies has been creating delicious desserts for more than thirty years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com INVENTION SUBMISSION: $1.5M in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Calhoun Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ETTA CALHOUN, SHERRY PORTER and CYNTHIA GRAY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INVENTION SUBMISSION CORPORATION d/b/a INVENTHELP, TECHNOSYSTEMBS CONSOLIDATED CORP., TECHNOSYSTEMS SERVICE CORP., WESTERN INVENTION SUBMISSION CORP., UNIVERSAL PAYMENT CORPORATION, INTROMARK INC., ROBERT J. SUSA, THOMAS FROST and THOMAS FROST, P.A., Defendants. This Opinion Also Relates To Carla Austin, et al. v. Invention Submission Corporation, et al., No. 2:19-cv-01396. and Geta Miclaus, et al. v. Invention Submission Corporation, et al., No. 2:20-cv-681, Civil Action No. 18-1022 (W.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs and service awards for the named Plaintiffs. First, the Plaintiffs' counsel seeks attorneys' fees of $1.5 million. In Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 1990), the Third Circuit directed that, when analyzing a fee award in a common fund case, a district court must consider several factors, including (1) the size of the fund created and the number of persons benefitted; (2) the presence or absence of substantial objections by members of the class to the settlement terms and/or fees requested by counsel; (3) the skill and efficiency of the attorneys involved; (4) the complexity and duration of the litigation; (5) the risk of nonpayment; (6) the amount of time devoted to the case by plaintiffs' counsel; and (7) the awards in similar cases. In In re Prudential Ins. Co. America Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 148 F.3d 283, 333 (3d Cir. 1998), the Third Circuit identified three other factors that may be relevant and important to consider: (1) the value of benefits accruing to class members attributable to the efforts of class counsel rather than the efforts of other groups, such as government agencies conducting investigations, (2) the percentage fee that would have been negotiated had the case been subject to a private contingent fee agreement at the time counsel was retained, and (3) any "innovative" terms of settlement. To assess whether this request is reasonable, Judge Dodge must consider the aforementioned Gunter and Prudential factors, many of which are similar to the Girsh factors, citing Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975). As addressed in the Opinion granting the Plaintiffs' motion to approve the settlement, the proposed settlement satisfies all of the Girsh factors and is fair and reasonable. The monetary settlement relief includes $3 million to be paid into a Gross Settlement Fund. In addition, as more fully described in the Settlement Agreement, monetary payments to Settlement Class Members include: $20 cash outside the Gross Settlement Fund for each customer who fully paid for their BIP Agreement who submits a Claim Form deemed timely and valid by the Settlement Administrator; a $20 credit outside the Gross Settlement Fund against the outstanding balance for each customer who has not fully paid for their BIP Agreement who submits a Claim Form deemed timely and valid by the Settlement Administrator; an election of an $800 credit outside the Gross Settlement Fund against the outstanding balance or services valued at not less than $3,000 for each of the SUB customers who have SUB Agreements that are Not Fully Paid and Open who submits a Claim Form deemed timely and valid by the Settlement Administrator; up to a $1,500 credit outside the Gross Settlement Fund against the outstanding balance for each of the SUB customers who have SUB Agreements Not Fully Paid and Closed; a pro rata payment of up to $250 from the Net Settlement Fund and services valued at not less than $3,000 for each of the SUB customers who have SUB Agreements that are Fully Paid and who submit a Claim Form deemed timely and valid by the Settlement Administrator; and credit repair and negative tradeline deletion request services. Having reviewed the Class Counsel's submissions and the Gunter/Prudential factors, Judge Dodge concludes that their request for fees is reasonable and should be awarded. Next, the Class Counsel has submitted exhibits reporting their lodestar using the method endorsed by the Third Circuit. As set forth in the Carson Declaration, the Class Counsel together have combined to have expended approximately 8,794.2 hours prosecuting the litigation to date, for a total combined lodestar of approximately $5,659,256.50, which will be slightly higher by the end of this litigation. The proposed attorneys' fee award of $1.5 million therefore represents a negative multiplier of only 26.5% of the Class Counsel's current collective lodestar. Whether measured using the percentage-of-recovery method or the lodestar method, Judge Dodge finds that the counsel has demonstrated that the fee request is fair and reasonable and will be granted. In his Declaration, Mr. Carson identifies expenses of $145,335.08 as of the date the motion was filed, which represent costs associated with mediation, copying fees, expert fees, computerized research and travel in connection with this litigation. Because the counsel will incur additional expenses in bringing the case to resolution, the parties agreed as part of the Settlement Agreement that the Plaintiffs would seek reimbursement of expenses up to $150,000. Judge Dodge will award the $150,000 costs requested by the Plaintiffs' counsel. She finds that these expenses to be reasonable and the counsel is entitled to reimbursement of these expenses. Lastly, the Settlement Agreement provides that Cynthia Gray, Vim and Kevin Byrne, Geta Miclaus, Carla Austin, and Nil Leone (the "Class Representatives") may apply for service awards of $3,000 each. Judge Dodge finds that the amounts requested here for the Class Representatives here are well within the range of awards typically granted in similar matters. Moreover, the Class Counsel represents that the Class Representatives have made significant contributions to the litigation and the Settlement. Thus, the $3,000 service awards requested are reasonable and merit approval. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of attorneys' fees, expenses and service awards is granted. An order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3mx4635h from Leagle.com. IPIC THEATERS: Wolfe Sues Over Workplace Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- Daevy Wolfe, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IPIC THEATERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; IPIC ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, A Florida Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV05796 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 15, 2023), is bright against the Defendants' discrimination in the workplace based on his race and age in violation of California Government Codes. The Plaintiff is an Asian male and was 46 years old at the time he was wrongfully terminated. The Plaintiff was hired on November 13, 2018 as a Bartender. In March 2020, Respondents temporarily closed its business amid the novel Coronavirus and informed Plaintiff he would be able to resume his employment once businesses were allowed to reopen. The Plaintiff was ready and able to resume his employment and was informed by his supervisor/manager Mark McLaughlin on multiple occasions that he would be able to do so. For unexplained reasons, Plaintiff was subsequently informed to reapply but was later notified his position had been filled, which Plaintiff alleges were filled by significantly younger non-Asian individuals. The purported reason for Plaintiff's termination was that Defendants had filled Plaintiff's position and denied Plaintiff any other work opportunities or assignments. Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully terminated due to his age and race. Plaintiff’s wrongful termination and the afore-referenced circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s unlawful termination amounted to discrimination on the basis of age and race. In sum, Plaintiff has been subjected to an insidious act of discrimination in the workplace based on his race and age in violation of California Government Code, the Defendants’ illegal employment actions towards Plaintiff included but have not been limited to denying Plaintiff opportunities that were unfairly given to equally and/or less qualified similarly situated non-Asian employees. As an actual and proximate result of the illegal employment actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer pain, humiliation, severe emotional distress, trauma, and sleeplessness. Plaintiff has also suffered lost wages, including without limitation, loss of wages and benefits. Plaintiff also has suffered a loss in earning capacity, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in November 13, 2018 as a Bartender. The Defendants operate as a restaurant and theater.[BN] Larry W. Lee, Esq. Christine S. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com christine@diversitylaw.com ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Sulopenem-Related Class Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Iterum Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2023, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the sulopenem-related class suit with prejudice on January 24, 2023 as no amended complaint was filed. On August 5, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint was purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between November 30, 2020 and July 26, 2021. The complaint generally alleged that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly material misstatements or omissions concerning the Company's submission of its NDA to the FDA for marketing approval of oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen and the likelihood of such approval. The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff’s selection of lead counsel on November 3, 2021. On January 26, 2022, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which included allegations similar to those made in the original complaint and sought similar relief. On April 8, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss with the court seeking dismissal of all claims asserted. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss occurred on August 17, 2022. On December 28, 2022, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice giving the plaintiffs until January 24, 2023 to file an amended complaint. As no amended complaint was filed, the dismissal was converted to a dismissal with prejudice on January 25, 2023. Iterum Therapeutics plc is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company dedicated to developing and commercializing sulopenem to be potentially the first oral branded penem available in the United States and the first and only oral and intravenous (IV) branded penem available globally. The company is based in Dublin, Ireland. KET\AL LLC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ket\Al, LLC. The case is styled as Omar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ket\Al, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02215-RA (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ket\Al, LLC is a company categorized under Snacks, Direct Sales.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wates, Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTOPHER KACZANOWSKI; LEROY COKER; and DARRELL BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation Inc.; and KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01188 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as drivers. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. provides trucking transportation services. The Company offers dry van, temperature-controlled, and drayage, as well as truckload freight brokerage services. Knight Transportation serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 220 Halleck Street, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Email: matt@righettilaw.com jglugoski@righettilaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com KOHL'S CORP: Continues to Defend Shanaphy Class Suit in Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kohl's Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Shanaphy class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On September 2, 2022, Sean Shanaphy, an alleged shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company, its directors, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Shanaphy v. Kohl's Corporation, No. 2:22-cv- 01016-LA (E.D. Wis.). The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between October 20, 2020 and May 19, 2022, and seeks compensatory damages, interest, fees, and costs. The complaint alleges that members of the putative class suffered losses as a result of (1) false or misleading statements and withholding of information regarding the conception, execution, and outcomes of the Company's strategic plan announced on October 20, 2020 and the Company's financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2022 and (2) the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, disclosure controls, and corporate governance mechanisms. The case is in its early stages. Lead plaintiff applications were submitted on November 1, 2022, and a lead plaintiff has not yet been selected. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint and to vigorously defend against these claims. Kohl's Corporation operates as an omnichannel retailer. The Company's stores and website sells private and national brand apparel, footwear, accessories, beauty, and home products, as well as offers online shopping and store credit cards. Kohl's serves customers in the United States. [BN] KYB CORP: Proposed $6-M Class Settlements in Antitrust Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ aftermarketmatters.com reports that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division has approved an announcement of proposed class action settlements with KYB and Hitachi Astemo. The settlements resolve allegations against the companies that they conspired to suppress and eliminate competition for shock absorbers by agreeing to raise, fix, maintain, and/or stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate markets and customers for shock absorbers sold in the U.S., in violation of federal antitrust laws. The settlements affect those who purchased shock absorbers in the U.S. between Jan. 1, 1995, and Sept. 18, 2021, directly from any one of the following entities (or their controlled subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint ventures): KYB Corporation; KYB Americas Corporation; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Astemo, Ltd., successor to Showa Corporation; and Hitachi Astemo Americas, Inc. A hearing will be held on June 8, at 2 p.m., for the purpose of determining whether to approve: (1) the proposed settlements with the KYB and Hitachi Astemo Defendants totaling $6,000,000; (2) Settlement Class Counsel's request for an award from the KYB and Hitachi Astemo settlement proceeds of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses; (3) the proposed plan of distribution of the Shock Absorbers Settlement Fund; and (4) service awards for the Class Representatives. A Notice of Proposed Settlements and Claim Form was mailed to potential Settlement Class members on or about March 9. The Notice describes the litigation and options available to Settlement Class members with respect to the KYB and Hitachi Astemo settlements in more detail. The Notice and other important documents related to the settlements can be accessed at www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/ShockAbsorbers, or by calling 1-877-393-1069 or writing to Shock Absorbers Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 3170, Portland, OR 97208-3170. Those who believe they may be a member of either or both of the KYB and Hitachi Astemo settlement classes, are urged to obtain a copy of the Notice. [GN] KYTE RENTALS: Yazid Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisimba Yazid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KYTE RENTALS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23CV028417 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, payment for rest periods and non productive time for piece rate workers and unreimbursed business expenses, statutory and civil penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under Labor Code. The Defendant willfully misclassified Plaintiff and other Class Members as independent contractors. Through this pattern or practice, Defendant has sought to avoid various duties and obligations owed to employees under the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9, and the General Minimum Wage Order including but not limited to failure to: Pay minimum wages; Pay overtime wages; Pay all wages to piece-rate workers for rest breaks and non-productive time; Reimburse business expenses; Furnish adequate wage statements; Pay all wages upon separation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Surfer. The Defendant is a California-based rental-car company providing valet delivery and pick-up of its vehicles to and from customers in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hunter Pyle, Esq. John J. Darin, Esq. HUNTER PYLE LAW 505 14Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 444-4400 Facsimile: (510) 444-4410 Emails: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com jdarin@hunterpylelaw.com L'OREAL USA: Largest Product Liability Class Suits Filed in Chicago ------------------------------------------------------------------- Erick Johnson at chicagocrusader.com reports that it could get as hot as a straightening comb and as painful as the sting of a hair relaxer. A federal court in Chicago is setting the stage for one of the largest class action lawsuits the country has seen in decades. It's expected to involve millions of Black plaintiffs across the country and could take years or even a decade to litigate. With the potential to generate astronomical legal fees and monetary settlements, it's a lawsuit that could grow so big it will make one's hair curl. At the center of the growing legal battle are some of America's biggest hair care corporations whose products Blacks have bought and used throughout their lives: L'Oreal, Soft Sheen, Dark and Lovely and Luster Smooth Touch. They are products whose roots are in Chicago, once the world capital of the Black hair care industry that fueled a generation of pioneering entrepreneurs whose products changed Black America. Claude A. Barnett, Annie Malone, Madame C.J. Walker, Marjorie Stewart Joyner, Fred Luster, Sr., S.B. Fuller, George Johnson, and Edward Gardner all revolutionized the Black hair care industry in Chicago at a time when beauty in the workplace and social scene was defined by white and European standards. Natural Black hair worn by African kings and queens was never in vogue in America. Blacks used chemicals and relaxers to achieve a sleek look that appealed to society, white employers and corporate America. Fast forward to 2023. Black women across the country who have used the same hair relaxers for decades now face the possibility of developing uterine cancer, endometrial cancer and other health risks from phthalates, a dangerous chemical whose harmful effects were uncovered in a study by the National Health Institute. Last October, the Institute released a Sister Study that examined nearly 34,000 women 35 to 74 years old who used hair relaxers for 11 years. About 7.4 percent or 2,512 of the participants were Black women and 4.4 percent or 1,494 were Latino. Nearly 86 percent of the participants were white. The study confirmed 262 cases of uterine cancer among the participants, of which nearly 56 percent had a college degree or above. While the study did not identify by race the number of women who developed uterine cancer, researchers said that Black women who had used hair relaxers for even one year were twice as likely as all other women to develop endometrial cancer. Older studies had shown that Black women who had previously used hair relaxers were also more likely to develop fibroids and ovarian cancer. Days after the study was released, a federal lawsuit was filed last October in Chicago in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It was filed by 11 attorneys, including Civil Rights attorney Benjamin Crump. The plaintiff, Jenny Mitchell, is a Black woman from Waynesville, Missouri, a small Midwestern town of just over 5,400 residents. She's the first plaintiff to file a lawsuit, but attorneys expect her complaint to balloon into a massive class action lawsuit that involves hundreds of thousands or even millions of Black women across America. So far, hair relaxer federal lawsuits have been filed in Illinois, California, Georgia, Louisiana and New York, but court documents show there are as many as 53 claims filed in 19 different federal court districts nationwide, with L'Oreal the most commonly named defendant. In January a special judicial panel ordered that all hair relaxer product liability lawsuits in federal courts nationwide will be consolidated into a class action, multi-district lawsuit that will be litigated under Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois, which is located at the Dirksen Courthouse in the Loop. Over the next few years, complaints brought in America's federal courts will be transferred to Judge Rowland to coordinate discovery, avoid conflicting pretrial rulings from different Courts and serve the convenience of common witnesses and parties involved in the cases. The Court is also expected to appoint a group of hair relaxer lawyers to serve in various leadership roles during the MDL proceedings, taking certain actions that will benefit all women who have filed a lawsuit. Law firms across the country have posted notices on their websites inviting potential victims of hair relaxers to seek their legal services. Attorney Crump in a statement said, "Generations of women of color, especially Black women, have been marketed and coerced to believe that using chemicals to straighten their hair equates to beauty. In her 77-page lawsuit filed in Chicago, Mitchell alleged she was diagnosed with uterine cancer five years ago after she was exposed to chemicals in hair care products from L'Oreal, Soft Sheen, Strength of Nature Global and Namaste Laboratories, LLC, in Chicago. They are among 11 defendants in Mitchell's lawsuit. According to the complaint, "All Defendants were engaged in the research, development, manufacture, design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Products, and introduced such products into interstate commerce with knowledge and intent that such products be sold in the State of Illinois. "At all times material hereto, Defendants developed, tested, assembled, manufactured, packaged, labeled, prepared, distributed, marketed, supplied, and/or sold the defective Products." Mitchell said in 2000 when she was around 10 years old, she started using on her hair, Motions, Dark & Lovely, Olive Oil Relaxer and Organic Root Stimulator. But in 2018, Mitchell said she was diagnosed with uterine cancer despite having no family history of the disease. In her lawsuit, Mitchell applied relaxers to her scalp or had relaxers applied by a professional at a hair salon. According to the lawsuit, Mitchell underwent a full hysterectomy at Boone Hospital Center in Columbia, Missouri, on September 24, 2018. Following this surgery, Mitchell underwent mandatory appointments every three months until 2020, when she was instructed to go to appointments every six months. Her hospital visits continue to this day. With uterine cancer, Mitchell lost her ability to have children, suffered extreme pain and suffering, and extreme emotional distress. As a plaintiff, Mitchell alleges the defendants committed 15 counts of business violations, including negligence and liability. Mitchell seeks more than $75,000 in damages, according to her lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, Mitchell alleges the hair care products she used during the time of sale and consummation, "were in an unreasonably dangerous and defective condition because they failed to contain adequate and proper warnings and/or instructions regarding the increased risk of cancer, including, but not limited to, breast cancer, associated with the use of the Defendants' hair products. Defendants themselves failed to properly and adequately warn and instruct Plaintiff as to the risks and benefits of the Products, given her need for this information. Hair relaxers are classified as creams or lotions, which are specifically marketed to Black and brown women to "tame" their ethnic hair by making it smoother, straighter and easier to manage daily. Home hair relaxer kits are sold in Jewel Supermarkets, Walgreens and Walmart stores. Hair relaxers can, and often do, cause burns and lesions in the scalp, facilitating entry of hair relaxer contaminants into the body. The main ingredient of "lye" relaxers is sodium hydroxide; no-lye relaxers contain calcium hydroxide and guanidine carbonate, and "thio" relaxers contain thioglycolic acid salts. No-lye relaxers are advertised to cause fewer scalp lesions and burns than lye relaxers, but there is little evidence to support this claim. In some studies, up to 90 percent of Black and brown women have used hair relaxants and straighteners, which is more commonplace for these women than for any other race. The most dangerous chemicals in relaxers are phthalates. They are chemical compounds used to make plastics more durable. Known as Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs), doctors say phthalates are known to cause numerous adverse human health outcomes, including endometriosis, impaired sperm quality, abnormalities in reproductive organs, various cancers, altered nervous system and immune function, respiratory problems, metabolic issues, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular problems, growth, and neurological and learning disabilities. EDCs are also known to cause uterine cancer. According to Mitchell's complaint, uterine cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women in developed countries, accounting for about 3 percent of all new cancer cases. Every year around 65,000 females develop uterine cancer in America alone. Black women are twice as likely to be diagnosed with uterine cancer as white women. In addition, Black women with uterine cancer carry a poorer prognosis as compared to white women. Mitchell's lawsuit may deal a huge blow to the Black hair care market, especially in Chicago, a city that was once the capital of the industry. One Chicago Black hair care company, Luster Products, was founded in Chicago and maintains its massive corporate headquarters in a 17-acre complex that includes its manufacturing facilities and distribution warehouses in Chicago's Stockyard Industrial Complex, 1104 W. 43rd St., in the Back of the Yards neighborhood. The online Lawsuit Information Center by Miller & Zois, LLC, says there are lawsuits against Luster's popular Smooth Touch and Pink hair relaxers, which are sold at Target, Walmart, and Sally Beauty Supply. Like many hair relaxers, they contain phthalates and EDCs. The Center says Luster Products is a multi-million-dollar company, but a uterine lawsuit against the company could have a potential settlement payout range of $300,000 to $1.75 million. Multiple settlements could deal a huge financial blow to companies like Luster Products, positioning them on the brink of bankruptcy. The Luster company was founded in 1957 by Fred Luster, Sr., a Black barber in Chicago who developed his relaxer products and started selling them at his barber shop. Luster Sr. died in 1991, when he was just 62 years old. Today Luster Products remains a privately-owned company and employs 250 people, including several third-generation Luster family members, according to a WTTW report in 2017. Luster products are sold in 62 countries. Luster Products is among many iconic Chicago Black hair care companies that established the city as America's hair care capital. During the 1910s and 1920s, Bronzeville resident and journalist Claude A. Barnett founded Kashmir Chemical Company, which manufactured specialty hair care products, according to the Encyclopedia of Chicago. During the 1930s, millionaire hair care magnates Madame CJ Walker and Annie Malone operated beauty and hair care schools on the South Side. Malone, who was Walker's former teacher and mentor, owned four Gothic mansions where the Chicago Defender building now stands on King Drive. Malone's rivalry with Walker was documented in the popular Netflix movie, "Self-Made." Chicago's Margaret Stewart Joyner who for decades organized the Bud Billiken Parade, was a student of Walker's before she developed the Wave Machine to soften the kinks of curly hair. In 1935, S.B. Fuller established the Fuller Products Company, a cosmetics company, on the city's South Side. Fuller, the first Black member of the National Association of Manufacturers, led the company through an expansion that peaked in the 1950s. By that time, an army of 5,000 salesmen sold nearly $20 million a year worth of various Fuller Products cosmetics-to European Americans as well as African Americans. One of Fuller's employees, George Johnson, left the company in 1954 to start his own business. Along with Chicago barber Orville Nelson, Johnson created the company that would soon become the most important of all manufacturers of African American hair care products: the Johnson Products Company. The company's "Ultra Wave" hair straightener proved popular, as did its "Ultra Sheen" and "Afro Sheen" lines, and by the end of the 1960s annual sales were over $10 million. During the 1970s, as sales expanded even further, Johnson Products ranked as the largest African American–owned manufacturing company in the nation. Johnson Products was not the only Chicago company engaged in the manufacture of beauty products for African American consumers. The Johnson Publishing Company, creator of Ebony magazine, entered the cosmetics business in the 1970s. And Johnson Products' leadership in the hair care sector was also challenged by Chicago's own Soft Sheen Products, Inc., a company established in the 1960s by Edward Gardner, which found success with brands such as "Care-Free Curl." The iconic "Soul Train" dance show that originated in Chicago had many advertisements that featured Black hair care products.[GN] LEE MEMORIAL: Mack Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of PII and PHI -------------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Mack, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 2:23-cv-00188 (M.D. Fla., March 14, 2023), is brought to address Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "Private Information") to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook"). The Defendant owns and controls www.leehealth.org ("Defendant's Website" or the "Website"), which it encourages patients to use for booking medical appointments, locating physicians and treatment facilities, communicating medical symptoms, searching medical conditions and treatment options, signing up for events and classes, and more. The Plaintiff and other Class Members who used Defendant's Website thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare provider. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however, Defendant had embedded the Facebook Tracking Pixel (the "Pixel" or "Facebook Pixel") on its Website, surreptitiously forcing Plaintiff and Class Members to transmit to Facebook every click, keystroke, and intimate detail about their medical treatment. Operating as designed and as implemented by Defendant, the Pixel allows the Private Information that Plaintiff and Class Members submit to Defendant to be unlawfully disclosed to Facebook alongside the individual's unique and persistent Facebook ID ("FID"). In addition to the Facebook Pixel, Defendant also installed and implemented Facebook's Conversions Application Programming Interface ("CAPI") on its Website servers. Unlike the Facebook Pixel, which co opts a website user's browser and forces it to transmit information to Facebook in addition to the website owner, CAPI does not cause the user's browser to transmit information directly to Facebook. Instead, CAPI tracks the user's website interaction, including Private Information, records and stores that information on the website owner's servers, and then transmits the data to Facebook from the website owner's servers. Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the Facebook Pixel and CAPI into its Website and servers, Defendant has never disclosed to Plaintiff or Class Members that it shared their sensitive and confidential communications and Private Information with Facebook. The Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their Private Information was being surreptitiously transmitted to Facebook as they communicated with their healthcare provider via the Website, or stored on Defendant's servers to be later transmitted to Facebook so it could be used for targeted advertising and marketing purposes. The Defendant breached its statutory and common law obligations to Plaintiff and Class Member by: failing to adequately review its marketing programs and web-based technology to ensure the hospital Website was safe and secure; failing to remove or disengage technology that was known and designed to share web-users' information; failing to obtain the written consent of Plaintiff and Class Members to disclose their Private Information to Facebook or others; failing to take steps to block the transmission of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information through Facebook Pixels; failing to warn Plaintiff and Class Members; and otherwise failing to design, and monitor its Website to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of patient Private Information. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: invasion of privacy; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Pixel, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of the Private Information, statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff accessed Defendant's Website on her mobile device and computer. LMHS operates six medical centers and six specialty centers in Florida and provides emergency services, urgent care, lab services, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 3833 Central Ave. St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Phone: (813) 786-8622 Email: jcohen@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, T 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court St., Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 4502 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON LAW FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com LIBERTY MEDIA: Davenport Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Trevor Davenport, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. Liberty Media Corporation, Formula One Group, Formula One Digital Media Limited, Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00044468-CU-MC-CTL was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00475-LAB-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Liberty Media Corporation -- https://www.libertymedia.com/ -- is an American mass media company controlled by chairman John C. Malone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Saunders, Esq. Craig Wallace Straub, Esq. Michael R. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Email: chad@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com - and - Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 433 North Camden Drive, Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Kathy Jan Huang, Esq. Rachel Elizabeth King Lowe, Esq. Samantha K. Burdick, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD 333 S. Hope Street, 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 576-1123 Fax: (213) 576-1100 Email: kathy.huang@alston.com rachel.lowe@alston.com sam.burdick@alston.com LINN COUNTY, OR: Gilliland Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN R. GILLILAND, v. LINN COUNTY DEPUTY EASON, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00496-MO (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Mosman entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. denying motion for Kytes; 3. granting the Plaintiff's motion to introduce evidence to the extent that the documents appended to that motion are now part of the Court's record. The Plaintiff in this prisoner civil rights action moves the Court to certify the case as a class action. The Plaintiff has not made sufficient allegations to satisfy the class action prerequisites identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. In addition, the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and it is well settled that although a non-attorney may appear on his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n1FBih at no extra charge.[CC] LITTLE PIE COMPANY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Little Pie Company, Ltd. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Little Pie Company, Ltd., Case No. 1:23-cv-02043 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Little Pie Company, Ltd. -- https://www.littlepiecompany.com/ -- is a no-frills bakery specializing in scratch-made pies in three sizes, plus cakes, cookies & muffins.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LOANDEPOT INC: Ahringer Sues Over Communications Interception ------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Ahringer and Michael Donner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOANDEPOT, INC. and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC. D/B/A JORNAYA, Case No. 8:23-cv-00186-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2023), is brought on behalf of individuals whose electronic communications were intercepted through LoanDepot's use of Jornaya software on its website in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). LoanDepot offers consumers instant quotes on mortgage and non-mortgage lending products after they complete forms on LoanDepot's website, www.LoanDepot.com, by entering personally identifiable information ("PII") and other private, sensitive information about themselves and their financial histories. Verisk Analytics, Inc., d/b/a Jornaya, sells software that records consumer interactions with a website in real time. Website owners can use this software by adding Jornaya's javascript1 into the source code of their webpages. Doing so permits both Jornaya and the website owner to record a visitor's keystrokes and other actions on the website. LoanDepot has embedded Jornaya's software in the computer code on its website to optimize its lead generation efforts, among other things. LoanDepot benefits financially from collecting information provided by potential customers, or "leads," who indicate an interest in applying for financial services such as home equity loans. Implementing Jornaya's software has allowed both companies to surreptitiously observe, record, store, and use visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic communications, including their entry of PII and other private, sensitive information. When users seeking a financial services quote enter private information on LoanDepot.com, LoanDepot shares those communications with Jornaya in real time, before notifying users or obtaining their consent. The communications LoanDepot shares with Jornaya include users' private personal and financial information, such as name, email address, geolocation, and other categories of information. Jornaya's software purports to increase the value of LoanDepot's leads by harvesting extra information about each person and independently documenting the information they provided. By wiretapping website users' communications, Defendants LoanDepot and Jornaya violate the CIPA, and invade Plaintiffs' and class members' privacy rights in violation of the California Constitution. The Plaintiffs each used the LoanDepot website to search for a loan, entering private information into the online form at LoanDepot.com. During each visit, Defendants LoanDepot and Jornaya recorded Plaintiffs' electronic communications in real time and used the intercepted data to learn their respective identities, addresses, and other private, sensitive information without their consent, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs used the LoanDepot website. LoanDepot is the third-largest private, independent retail mortgage and residential lender in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew M. Purdy, Esq. BROWN, NERI, SMITH & KAHN, LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 520 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (949) 676-0030 Email: andrew@bnsklaw.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. Nina Gliozzo, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com ngliozzo@girardsharp.com LOANDEPOT INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suits in CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- LoanDepot Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated class suits in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Beginning in September 2021, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California asserting claims under the U.S. securities laws against the Company, certain of its directors, and certain of its officers regarding certain disclosures made in connection with the Company's IPO. The two actions were consolidated and the court appointed a lead plaintiff in May 2022. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in June 2022, which, in addition to challenging disclosures made in connection with the IPO, alleges that certain disclosures made after the IPO were false and/or misleading. The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on August 24, 2022. On October 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company's reply was submitted on November 10, 2022. On January 24, 2023, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company's answer to the consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 3, 2023. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. LoanDepot Inc. is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. LONGEVITY LABS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Longevity Labs, Inc. The case is styled as Omar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Longevity Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02211-ALC (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Longevity Labs, Inc. -- https://www.longevitylabs.io/ -- is distributing cutting-edge health products created by the world's leading scientists in longevity and human aging.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRIZIA BERG, et al., individually and on behalf others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order approving the joint stipulation and modifying the current scheduling order regarding the motion for class certification: Matter Current Date Requested Date Deadline to file Motion April 7, 2023 June 30, 2023 for Class Certification Opposition deadline May 5, 2023 Aug. 11, 2023 (Motion for Class Certification) Reply deadline (Motion May 19, 2023 Sept. 1, 2023 for Class Certification) Hearing on Class June 9, 2023 Sept. 15, 2023 Certification Motion A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lwl5WM at no extra charge.[CC] LOWES HOME: Azizpor Wage-and-Hour Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DAVID AZIZPOR, an individual; ARTEMIO ANGEL, an individual; DANIEL WEST, an individual; EDWARD SHUBIN, an individual; ROBERT GREGORY, an individual; and RONALD BLUHM, an individual; each as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOWES HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00085, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 10, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00452-JM-BLM to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and other individuals similarly situated pursuant to the California Labor Code and Industrial Wage Commission and the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid premiums for rest-and-meal break violations, unpaid overtime compensation, applicable penalties, injunctive and other relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Lowes Home Centers retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth Christopher, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 835-1550 - and - Eugene Zinovyev, Esq. Kristabel Sandoval, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ezinovyev@schneiderwallace.com ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com The Defendant is represented by: Michele Leigh Maryott, Esq. Katie Magallanes, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 451-3945 Facsimile: (949) 475-4668 - and - Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7107 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 MAP COMMUNICATIONS: Brutout Seeks Approval of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEEANN BRUTOUT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MAP COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01533-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the terms of the Agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount of the settlement; the amount of distributions to class members; the procedure for giving notice to class members; the procedure for opting out of the settlement; and the amounts allocated to the service payment and attorney’s fees and costs; 2. preliminarily certifying for settlement purposes the Settlement Class; 3. appointing Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement Class; 4. appointing Moon & Yang, APC as counsel for the Settlement Class; 5. approving the use of Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the settlement administrator; 6. directing that notice issue to members of the Settlement Class as provided in the Agreement; and 7. scheduling a final approval and fairness hearing on a date approximately 145 days after preliminary approval (Thursday, September 14, 2023 is proposed, assuming a preliminary approval order issues shortly after April 20, 2023) to consider whether the Agreement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to rule on the motion for attorney's fees, costs and service payments submitted by Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff negotiated a settlement that resolves claims and recovers money for the approximately 760 Settlement Class Members. This settlement is fair and reasonable, especially given the claims and the potential defenses to them and the daunting hurdles presenting substantial risks for class certification, the Plaintiff contends. The case is a putative wage and hour class action on behalf of non-exempt employees employed by the Defendant at any time from July 21, 2017 to December 31, 2022. The core issues in the case were based on allegations by named Plaintiff Brutout that the Defendant did not provide legally compliant meal periods and rest breaks, did not reimburse employees for business expenses, did not compensate employees for all time worked, and, as a result, wage statements provided to employees were rendered inaccurate, final wages were not timely paid, and the conduct violated the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Defendant disputes these claims. The case was thoroughly investigated by all Parties. Following the production of policy documents, time records, and pay data, and vigorous negotiation at mediation, Plaintiff and Defendant reached a proposed class action settlement valued at $380,000.00 for approximately 760 putative class members. The full terms of the settlement are set forth in the Stipulation. The primary material terms are as follows: The provisions of the proposed Settlement include the following: a. Settlement The Defendant agrees not to oppose certification for purposes of Settlement. b. Class "All persons employed by MAP in California and classified as non-exempt employees who worked for MAP during the Class Period (the "Class Period" is July 21, 2017 to December 31, 2022). "Participating Class Members" are those Class Members who do not submit timely exclusion requests to the Settlement Administrator. c. Settlement Amount The Defendant will pay a maximum of $380,000.00, referred to as the Gross Settlement Amount, resulting in an estimated average gross payment per Class Member of approximately $500.00. d. approximately 33,500 workweeks. e. PAGA Period: July 17, 2020 to December 31, 2022. MAP Communications is an employee-owned call center service company that provides answering services and live receptionist solutions for businesses large and small in many different industries across North America. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yVmBVa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. Mariam Ghazaryan, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com mariam.ghazaryan@moonyanglaw.com MARGARITAVILLE ENTERPRISES: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01939-BMC (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jimmy Buffett's Margaritaville -- http://www.margaritaville.com/-- is the name of a United States–based hospitality company that manages and franchises a casual dining American restaurant chain, a chain of stores selling Jimmy Buffett–themed merchandise, and casinos with lodging facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. 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 MARTINS HOME: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Martins Home & Garden, LLC. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Martins Home & Garden, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02160 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Martin's Home & Garden -- https://martinshomeandgarden.com/ -- is Murfreesboro's premier nursery and garden center.[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 MATCO TOOLS: Gardner Files Suit in N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matco Tools Corporation. The case is styled as Toby Clarkson Gardner, Keston Lewis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Matco Tools Corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-00383-DAR (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 27, 2023). The nature of suit stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Matco Tools, Inc. -- https://www.matcotools.com/ -- is an American professional tool distribution franchise for the automotive and other industries and is based in Stow, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jared W. Connors, Esq. Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. MEYER WILSON 305 West Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (630) 384-7030 Email: jconnors@meyerwilson.com mwilson@meyerwilson.com mboyle@meyerwilson.com MCKESSON MEDICAL: Class Cert. Expert Discovery Due April 21 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harris v. McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01321 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order that all deadlines and dates are hereby vacated, except as follows: -- The last day to complete Discovery March 10, 2023 related to Class Certification (except expert discovery) is: -- The last day to complete Expert April 21, 2023 Discovery related to Class Certification is: -- The last day to move for/against May 19, 2023 Class Certification is: -- The Opposition or Statement of June 2, 2023 Non-Opposition to any Class Certification Motion is due by: -- Reply is due by: June 10, 2023. The nature of suit states civil rights -- employment discrimination. McKesson is a medical distributor of medical supplies, durable medical equipment, surgical supplies, and medical lab supplies.[CC] MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Causes Cancer, Liposky Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD LIPOSKY, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01007-RMG (D.S.C., March 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer by exposure to AFFF containing PFAS, the suit alleges. The Liposky case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 MDL 2873: Exposure to Toxic PFAS Causes Cancer, Showalter Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SHOWALTER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01008-RMG (D.S.C., March 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic, toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended purpose, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer by exposure to AFFF containing PFAS, the suit alleges. The Showalter case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 MDL 2913: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Richland Parish Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHLAND PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01210 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Richland Parish School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Richland Parish School District is a public school district with its offices located in Richland Parish County. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services Inc. is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Henrico County, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. Jade S. Koller, Esq. Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2913: Pointe Coupee Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------- POINTE COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01209 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board is a public school district with its offices located in Pointe Coupee Parish County. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services Inc. is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Henrico County, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. Jade S. Koller, Esq. Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Class Cert & Initial Settlement Approval Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA FRAWLEY, v. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT GROUP OF NEW YORK, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-08894-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for class certification and for preliminary approval of settlement. A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated March 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n5IqyP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maia Goodell, Esq. Emily Bass, Esq. VLADECK, RASKIN & CLARK, P.C. 565 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 403-7300 MI PUEBLO CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ WENDY BAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MI PUEBLO CORP. (DBA DON POLI MARKET); and LUCY PELAEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02097 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Baez was employed by the Defendants as staff. MI PUEBLO CORP. owns and operates a restaurant business located at Brooklyn, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 MINSK HOSPITALITY: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MINSK HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, AMARILLO HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, and JIJU THOMAS VITHAYATHIL, Case No. 2:23-cv-00040-Z (N.D. Tex., March 14, 2023), is brought seeking a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff lawful overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). The Plaintiff estimates he regularly worked between 45 and 50 hours per week. The Plaintiff recorded his time using Defendants' electronic timekeeping system and via paper timesheet; however, the Defendants instructed Plaintiff only to record time he spent working at the Extend a Suites location in Amarillo. In addition to the Plaintiff's regularly scheduled hours, he was also regularly required to answer after-hours calls to resolve issues as they arose. The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff was working hours over 40 each week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff 1.5x his regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 per week. The Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and similarly situated employees of overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual and resident of Potter County and worked for the Defendants. Defendants do business as Rest Inn and Extend A Suites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AK 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com MM ENTERPRISES: Smith Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MM Enterprises USA, LLC. The case is styled as Chelsea Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MM Enterprises USA, LLC doing business as: MedMen, Case No. 2:23-cv-00676-PA-SK (C.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. MM Enterprises USA, LLC doing business as MedMen -- https://medmen.com/ -- is a publicly-traded, United States-based cannabis company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Armen Zohrabian, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 4 Embarcadero Center Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 766-3534 Email: azohrabian@hedinhall.com - and - Frank S Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com The Defendant is represented by: Joseph L. McGeady, Esq. ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY AND NATSIS LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 27th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 233-1155 Email: jmcgeady@allenmatkins.com MOELIS & COMPANY: West Palm Sues Over Invalid and Unlawful Terms ---------------------------------------------------------------- West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Class A stockholders of MOELIS & COMPANY v. MOELIS & COMPANY, Case No. 2023-0309- (Del. Chancery Ct., March 13, 2023), is brought seeking a declaratory judgment from this Court that the terms of the Stockholders Agreement providing Holdings with a contractual power to control the most important decisions and functions of Moelis and its Board are invalid and unenforceable under Delaware law. Delaware's renowned and historically successful corporate law rests on the bedrock principle of director primacy established by Section 141(a) of its General Corporation Law (the "DGCL"), which provides that "the business and affairs of every corporation shall be managed by or under the direction of a board of directors, except as may be otherwise provided in this chapter or in its certificate of incorporation." The Plaintiff brings this action because Moelis is presently flouting this foundational principle of Delaware law through a contractual arrangement designed to entrench and perpetuate the control of its founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer--Kenneth Moelis—over Moelis' business and affairs. Specifically, in violation of DGCL Section 141(a), Moelis has provided an entity controlled by K. Moelis--Moelis & Company Partner Holdings, LP--with a contractual power to control the most important decisions and functions properly entrusted to the Company's Board under our corporate system. First, pursuant to a "Stockholders Agreement," Moelis has granted Holdings with a contractual veto power over a wide-array of corporate decisions including, inter alia: the amendment of the Company's governing documents, the issuance of stock, the payment of dividends, the entry into or amendment of material contracts, the settlement of material litigation actions (presumably including this one), the scope of the company's lines of business, the approval of the Company's annual budgets and business plans, any change to the Company's taxable year or fiscal year, any change to the Company's name, and the hiring and firing of senior executives. The agreement provides the Board with no fiduciary out and, pursuant to its terms, will remain effective so long as K. Moelis continues to hold at least a small minority economic interest (around 7%) in the Company. Thus, Moelis is not presently being managed by or under the direction of its Board. A Board that lacks the power to even determine the scope of its corporation's business, adopt business plans, and select its own officers cannot be said to manage the business and affairs of the corporation. Rather, Moelis is in significant part managed by or under the direction of Holdings and K. Moelis. This violates DGCL. Moreover, to the extent the Stockholders Agreement interferes with the authority of the Board or Stockholders to take specific fundamental corporate actions in the manner provided for by the DGCL--including the authority of the Board and stockholders to approve mergers under Section 251, the authority of the Board and stockholders to approve certificate amendments under Section 242, and the authority of the Board or stockholders to approve bylaw amendments under Section 109—it also violates these provisions of the DGCL. Second, pursuant to Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the same Stockholders Agreement, Moelis has bound its Board, including future Boards: to recommend for election to the Board nominees designated by K. Moelis and his affiliates; and to construct the Board's own committees in a manner designated by K. Moelis and his affiliates. These provisions likewise violate DGCL Section 141(a) and related principles of Delaware law by improperly infringing on Moelis' directors' rights and obligations to exercise their own independent judgment consistent with their fiduciary duties to make recommendations as to who should be elected to the Board and to determine who should sit on the Board's own committees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a beneficial owner of shares of Moelis' Class A common stock and has been since on or about November 19, 2014. Moelis is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York City and describes itself as a leading global independent investment bank that offers comprehensive, globally integrated financial advisory services across all major industry sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Curry, Esq. Tayler D. Bolton, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 824 N. Market Street, Suite 1003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 485-0483 - and - David Wales, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, 8th Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 437-8551 - and - Adam Warden, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Phone: (561) 394-3399 MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Leonard Class Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOPHER LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-10102-PAC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses the complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against the Defendant. The Defendant manufactures and sells Fudge Covered Mint Crème OREO cookies, which consist of chocolate sandwich cookies containing mint crème covered in a chocolate-flavored coating. The Plaintiff claims, in large part, that the Product's label misleads consumers because it purports to contain "fudge" when, under Plaintiff's definition of fudge, it does not. The Plaintiff proposes a New York class and a multi-state class based on all persons in North Dakota, Kansas, and Wyoming "who purchased the Product during the statute of limitations for each cause of action alleged" (the "Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class"). He seeks money damages for (1) violations of New York General Business Law ("NY GBL") Sections 349 and 350; (2) violations of the "Consumer Fraud Acts of the States in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class"; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (5) fraud; (6) and unjust enrichment. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). As to Count I (NY GBL Sections 349 and 350), the parties' main dispute centers on whether the Defendant's representations were deceptive or materially misleading. The Plaintiff claims the Product's "Fudge Covered" description is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Product does not contain dairy ingredients that a reasonable consumer would expect to find in fudge. The Defendant asserts that the term "fudge" refers to the Product's chocolate flavor, not its ingredients, and in any event, no reasonable consumer would associate "fudge" with the presence of milk or butter. Judge Crotty agrees that "Fudge Covered," without more, would not mislead a reasonable consumer into believing the product necessarily contained milkfat or butter, regardless of whether "Fudge Covered" refers to the Product's flavor or an ingredient. The Plaintiff therefore fails to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would conclude "Fudge Covered," without more, necessarily implies that the Product contains milkfat. His claims under Section 349 and 350 are therefore dismissed. With respect to Count II (state consumer fraud claims), the Plaintiff's only argument is that the Defendant's claims may not be properly raised in a footnote. Judge Crotty holds that the Plaintiff cannot claim surprise over the nature of the Defendant's arguments when he called the error to the Court's attention in the first instance in his opposition brief and when the underlying state statutes in Count II rely on materially the same standard as the Defendant's fully-briefed NY GBL claims. The Plaintiffs claims under Wyoming, North Dakota, and Kansas law likewise fail for the same reason they failed under New York law; he has not plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would mistakenly believe that the phrase "Fudge Covered" necessarily means the Product contains milk or butter. As to Count III (breach of express warranty under New York law), Judge Crotty finds that the Plaintiff also fails to allege he provided adequate notice. He rejects the Plaintiff's contention that merely filing suit constitutes proper notice. He says the Plaintiff's claim alternatively fails for the same reasons his NY GBL claims fail; he has not plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would be misled to believe that "Fudge Covered" necessarily means the Product contains milkfat. The Plaintiff's breach of implied warranty claim (Count IV) fails for the same lack of pre-suit notice. Even assuming proper notice, his claim fails because nothing in the Complaint even remotely suggests that the Product is unfit for consumption. Regarding Count V (fraud), the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant acted with fraudulent intent because it knew that the Product was not consistent with its representations and because it's alleged misrepresentation allowed it to sell more of the Product and "at higher prices." Both arguments fail, Judge Crotty holds. He says the simple knowledge that a statement is false is not sufficient to establish fraudulent intent, nor is a generalized motive to satisfy consumers' desires or increase sales or profits. Because the Complaint does not plausibly allege fraudulent intent, the Plaintiff's fraud count is dismissed. Lastly, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim hinges on the same facts that provide the basis for every other of his claims and is therefore dismissed. For the reasons he stated, Judge Crotty grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF No. 13. A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjav5sav from Leagle.com. MONOGRAM AEROSPACE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to July 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO BRICENO, as an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MONOGRAM AEROSPACE FASTENERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; TRIMAS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-06582-JAK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving the joint stipulation to continue date for motion for class certification and related dates as follows: Event Previous Date New Date Deadline to file motion Jul. 31, 2023 Nov. 10, 2023 for class certification Deadline to file opposition Aug. 28, 2023 Dec. 8, 2023 to class certification Deadline to file Response re Sept. 11, 2023 Dec. 21, 2023 class certification Hearing on motion for class Sept. 25, 2023 Jan. 8, 2024 certification Monogram Aerospace is a leading designer and manufacturer of permanent threaded blind bolts, collars, and temporary fasteners. A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JrZpDa at no extra charge.[CC] MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Costello Files Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR COSTELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOUNTAIN LAUREL ASSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00035-TAV-CRW (E.D. Tenn.), the the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Mountain Laurel Assurance Company to a Tennessee resident who, from April 7, 2016, through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on an Instant Report prepared by Mitchell (i.e. Report code = "COMP") and the actual cash value was decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value." All prerequisites for class certification set forth in Rule 23(a) are satisfied, and class treatment is proper under Rule 23(b)(3)." Under basic appraisal standards, calculating the actual cash value ("ACV") of a vehicle using the comparable or "comp" methodology is done by taking the average price of comparable vehicles, adjusted for any observed and verified differences between each respective comparable vehicle and the insured vehicle in mileage, equipment, and condition. Adjustments to the price of comparable vehicles cannot be based on unverified assumptions, to say nothing of purposely discarding and ignoring data that undermines such assumptions. Auto industry experts explain that Progressive's assumption underlying the PSA -- that dealerships overprice vehicles and consumers typically negotiate down from that advertised cash price -- reflects a long-outdated understanding of the used car market. Given the ubiquity of Internet shopping and the development of sophisticated pricing tools, car dealerships now aggressively price vehicles to market -- in other words, the list price must reflect the actual cash market value—because otherwise consumers who can compare advertised prices from the comfort of their own home will never visit a dealership advertising an inflated price. Mountain Laurel is an insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lrYFFU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Hank Bates, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther @cpblaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 250-3937 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com - and - Amy Lynn Judkins, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCroy Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: amy.judkins@normandpllc.com MPM ENTERPRISES INC: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MPM Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MPM Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02047 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MPM Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 2010. The Company's line of business includes providing various business services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MRK FINE ARTS: Hwang Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MRK Fine Arts, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01928 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services MRK Fine Arts provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.monicarichkosann.com (hereinafter "Monicarichkosann.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Monicarichkosann.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by MRK Fine Arts. Yet, Monicarichkosann.com contains significant access barriers that make it if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to enjoy and learn about the services at Monicarichkosann.com prior to entering Defendant's physical location. Thus, MRK Fine Arts excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a variety of services. Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily trafficked websites, which makes use of alternative text, accessible forms, descriptive links, resizable text and limits the usage of tables and JavaScript, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. MRK Fine Arts' sighted customers can independently browse and learn more information about the company and its services without the assistance of others. However, blind persons must rely on sighted companions to assist them in accessing Monicarichkosann.com. By failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. MRK Fine Arts specializes in jewelry and lockets for women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 108-26 64th avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (929) 324-0717 Fax: (929) 333-7774 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MSWEST ENTERPRISES: Keith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSWest Enterprises. The case is styled as Anthony Keith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MSWest Enterprises d/b/a Certified Collision Center, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0001865 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 27, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." MSWest Enterprises doing business as Certified Collision Center -- https://certifiedcollisiongroup.com/ -- feature some of the largest repair facilities located through out the Central Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yales, Esq. NATIONAL TAX ADVISORY: Wu Sues Over Prerecorded Voice Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- Chun Wu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL TAX ADVISORY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00679 (D. Colo., March 16, 2023), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), arising from Defendant's violations of the TCPA, seeking injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation and disruption of the daily life of countless individuals. To promote its services, Defendant engages in calling thousands of consumers and playing artificial or prerecorded voice messages marketing their services. The Defendant did not obtain express written consent prior to placing these artificial or prerecorded voice calls and, therefore, are in violation of the TCPA. The TCPA targets unauthorized calls playing prerecorded voices exactly like the ones alleged in this case, based on Defendant's use of technological equipment to spam consumers with its advertising on a grand scale. The Plaintiff has received numerous unsolicited prerecorded voice messages from the Defendant without his prior express consent and despite the fact that he is registered on the National Do-Not-Call registry. By placing the calls at issue without express consent and to consumers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, the Defendant is harming thousands of consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual and a "person" as defined by the TCPA. The Defendant is a tax debt relief service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC-NJ 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (347) 526-4093 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Savino Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Savino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01438 (D.N.J., March 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationwide Credit Inc. -- https://nccarm.com/ -- provides collection services throughout several sectors including the government, utility, health care, and credit union sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com NAVY FEDERAL: Joint Bid to Extend Briefing Schedule Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIOBHAN MORROW and TRACEE LE FLORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00722-MSN-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Lindsey Robinsons Vaala entered an order granting in part and denying in part joint motion to extend briefing schedule and close of fact discovery. Specifically, it is ordered that the Joint Motion is granted such that Plaintiffs' opposition to Navy Federal's Motion to Exclude is due on or before March 13, 2023, and Navy Federal's reply in support of its Motion to Exclude is due on or before March 20, 2023. It is further ordered that the Joint Motion is denied with respect to the request to extend the March 31, 2023 deadline for fact discovery, except that the Nationwide Data discussed in the Joint Motion may be produced by Navy Federal no later than 21 days after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Navy Federal is a global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia. A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JNZulX at no extra charge.[CC] NEUEHAUS STUDIOS: Tene Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Manuel Namina Tene, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEUEHAUS STUDIOS INC. and HAYK SAFARYAN, as an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-02040 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2023), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and the Federal and New York State Labor Laws arising out of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants. Although the Plaintiff regularly worked 50 hours or more hours each week from in November 2020 until November 2021, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for her hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a roofer, bricklayer and concrete mixer while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from November 2020 until November 2021. NEUEHAUS STUDIOS INC., is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 NEW YORK, NY: All Claims in Murray Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT L. MURRAY, a/k/a Leviticus Bomfet Lucfer and SHAQUAN BUTLER, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 15 JOHN DOE C.O., 2 JOHN DOE CAPT., 2 JOHN DOE DEPT., 1 JANE DOE DEPT., and 2 JOHN DOE CHS STAFF, Defendants, Case No. 23 Civ. 458 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: (i) dismisses without prejudice any claims the Plaintiff asserts on behalf of Shaquan Butler and others; (ii) requests the City of New York waive service of summons; (iii) directs the City of New York and NYC Health + Hospitals to assist the Plaintiff in identifying the correction and the Correctional Health Services ("CHS") staff members involved in the alleged deprivation of his rights; (iv) applies Local Civil Rule 33.2 to the action; and (v) refers the Plaintiff to the New York Legal Assistance Group's Clinic. Murray, who is currently detained at the George R. Vierno Center ("GRVC") on Rikers Island, brings the pro se action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the Defendants used excessive force against him. By order dated Feb. 3, 2023, the Court granted Murray's request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), that is, without prepayment of fees. Murray brings the action on behalf of himself and Shaquan Butler, who has not signed the complaint. He also writes at the top of the form complaint "Plaintiff 1# Class Action." To the extent that Murray seeks to bring the action on behalf of Shaquan Butler and others, Judge Failla denies his request. Although the docket reflects that Shaquan Butler is being represented by himself, pro se, she understands from the complaint that only Murray brings the action. Further, as a nonlawyer cannot bring suit on behalf of others, a pro se plaintiff cannot act as a class representative. The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the Order. The Court requests that the City of New York waives service of summons. In the complaint, the Plaintiff appears to supply sufficient information to permit the government to identify the John and Jane Doe Defendants who allegedly violated his rights on Oct. 3, 2022, by using excessive force against him in the intake areas of the North Infirmary Command ("NIC") and GRVC, and then denying him medical care for his injuries. Judge Failla therefore orders that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC"), must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe correction officer whom the Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where each defendant may be served. She also orders that the NYC Health + Hospitals ("H+H"), which is the medical care provider for all DOC facilities, must ascertain the identity of each John Doe medical staff member whom the Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where each of these defendants may be served. The New York City Law Department and H+H must provide this information to the Plaintiff and the Court within 60 days of the date of the Order. Within 30 days of receiving this information, the Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. Once the Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order asking the named defendants to waive service or directing the Clerk of Court to complete and deliver all documents necessary to the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service on the named defendants. Within 120 days of service of the complaint, the Defendants must serve responses to the standard discovery requests. In their responses, they must quote each request verbatim. Lastly, the Plaintiff may consult the legal clinic opened in this District to assist people who are parties in civil cases and do not have lawyers. The Clinic is run by a private organization called the New York Legal Assistance Group ("NYLAG"); it is not part of, or run by, the Court. To receive limited-scope assistance from the Clinic, the Plaintiff may mail a signed retainer and intake form to the NYLAG Pro Se Clinic at 40 Foley Square, LL22, NY, NY 10007. Once the paperwork is received, the Clinic will coordinate contact with the litigant. Once received, it may take up to two weeks for the Clinic to contact the litigant. In light of the foregoing, Judge Failla dismisses without prejudice all claims asserted on behalf of Shaquan Butler and others. The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this Order. The Court requests that Defendant City of New York waive service of summons. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of the Order and the complaint to: (i) New York City Law Department, 100 Church Street, New York, New York 10007; and (ii) NYC Health + Hospitals at 50 Water Street, New York, New York 10004. Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the action. The Plaintiff is referred to the NYLAG Pro Se Clinic. Copies of the Clinic's flyer, retainer, and intake form are attached to the Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to the Plaintiff, in addition to a copy of the Order. An Amended Civil Rights Complaint form is also attached to the Order. Judge Failla certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from her Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p87c2rd from Leagle.com. NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement Terms in Sierra Get Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMIRA SIERRA, AMALI SIERRA, RICARDO NIGAGLIONI, ALEX GUTIERREZ, AND CHARLES HENRY WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, a municipal entity; and Mayor BILL DE BLASIO, Chief of Department TERENCE A. MONAHAN, Assistant Chief KENNETH C. LEHR, Inspector ROBERT GALLITELLI, Bureau Chief HARRY WEDIN, Deputy Chief JOHN D'ADAMO, Deputy Chief GERARD DOWLING, Captain JULIO DELGADO, Sergeant KENNETH RICE, Sergeant THOMAS GARGUILO, Police Officer JOHN MIGLIACCIO, and Police Officer THOMAS MOSHER, in their individual capacities, Case No. 1:20-cv-10541-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Colleen McMahon entered an order as follows: (1) the proposed settlement terms as reflected in the parties' Stipulation of settlement and order are preliminary approved; and (2) the proposed class as defined in the parties' stipulation is conditionally certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) and 23(e); and (3) Hamilton Clarke, LLP; Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP, Rickner PLLC; and Michael L. Spiegel, Esq. are appointed as Class Counsel; and (4) the proposed class settlement notice procedure as reflected in stipulation is approved; and (5) Rust Consulting, Inc. is appointed Class Administrator. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yEaCLL at no extra charge.[CC] NEWMARK GROUP: Faces Sherman Act-Related Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Newmark Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2023, that the Company faces a Sherman Act-related class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed against Cantor, BGC Holdings, and Newmark Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00265). The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited partners on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated limited partners, alleges a claim for breach of contract against all defendants on the basis that defendants failed to make payments due under the relevant partnership agreements. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions upon which defendants relied to deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware law. Plaintiffs allege a second claim against Cantor and BGC Holdings for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act on the basis that the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade. In that regard, plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions of the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements, as well as restrictive covenants included in partner separation agreements, cause anticompetitive effects in the labor market, insulate Cantor and BGC Holdings from competition, and limit innovation. Plaintiffs seek a determination that the case may be maintained as a class action, an injunction prohibiting the allegedly anticompetitive conduct, and monetary damages of at least $5,000,000. The Company believes the lawsuit has no merit. However, as with any litigation, the outcome cannot be determined with certainty. Newmark Group Inc. is a leading full-service commercial real estate services business that offers diverse array of integrated services and products designed to meet the full needs of both real estate investors/owners and occupiers. NHC.COM LLC: Alvarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NHC.com, LLC. The case is styled as Vivian Alvarez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NHC.com, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02208 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. NHC -- https://www.nhc.com/ -- are a natural health store specializing in clean vitamins, supplements, essential oils, organic and natural beauty care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION: Prutsman Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nonstop Administration and Insurance Services, Inc. The case is styled as John Prutsman, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nonstop Administration and Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01131 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Nonstop Administration and Insurance Services -- https://www.nonstophealth.com/ -- was founded with the mission to reduce health insurance costs for nonprofits and their employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 401 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Barnhouse Files Suit in N.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Edward E. Barnhouse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00510 (N.D. Ohio, March 13, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land. Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- is one of the nation's premier transportation companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas H. Sanders, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 100 Garden City Plaza, Ste. 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Email: dsanders@thesandersfirm.com NORLITE LLC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill, et al., v. Norlite, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00439 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Stewart entered an order setting scheduling order deadlines as follows: a. Discovery due by Dec. 29, 2023. b. Motions to be filed by Feb. 1, 2024. c. Class Certification Motion due by Nov. 1, 2023. d. Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Deadline is Oct. 3, 2023. e. Defendants Expert Disclosure Deadline is Nov. 16, 2023. f. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is Nov. 30, 2023. g. Deadline for completion of Mandatory Mediation is Oct. 27, 2023. Any future requests for extensions of deadlines will remain pending until a status conference can be held. The suit states property -- diversity-torts to land. Norlite was founded in Cohoes in 1956. The company manufactures ceramic lightweight aggregates from shale.[CC] O'CHARLEY'S LLC: Simms FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lindsey Simms, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. O'Charley's LLC, Case No. 23-A-420 was removed from the State Court of Cobb County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01062-LMM-RDC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. O'Charley's -- https://www.ocharleys.com/ -- is a casual dining restaurant chain in the United States, with more than 175+ company-owned locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq. Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP-WOODSTOCK 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Phone: (770) 427-5600 Fax: (404) 601-1855 Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Keith James Keogh, Esq. Michael S. Hilicki, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 726-1092 Email: Keith@keoghlaw.com mhilicki@keoghlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Gregory Michael O'Neil, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP-ATL 201 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Email: greg.oneil@nelsonmullins.com O'REILLY AUTO: Class Certification Bid Hearing Continued to June 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA VVANTI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC a Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-02407-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving stipulation regarding hearing date and briefing schedule on plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: 1. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is continued from April 24, 2023, to June 5, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., with the precise time to be confirmed when the final calendar for that date is issued. 2. The Defendant's opposition shall be filed on or before April 10, 2023. 3. The Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed on or before May 1, 2023. O'Reilly owns and operates retail auto parts stores. A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LSnJRx at no extra charge.[CC] OBI SEAFOODS: Loses Bid for Reconsideration in Paunovic ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIJA PAUNOVIC and DUSAN PAUNOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OBI SEAFOODS LLC and OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00884-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order denying motion for reconsideration. Under the Local Civil Rules, "motions for reconsideration are disfavored." Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). "The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence, the Court says. The Defendants contend that the Court committed manifest error in its decision on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Employer of Former Icicle Workers by contradicting an earlier-issued Order For Further Briefing. OBI Seafoods is an Alaskan seafood processor. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42tLO6I at no extra charge.[CC] OMNICARE INC: Frazier Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yolanda Frazier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OMNICARE, INC. and HENRY INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00856 (S.D. Ill., March 14, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay minimum wage, overtime, and reimburse the Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers for expenses incurred while making deliveries for Omnicare who works with various companies (herein referred to as "Regional Services Companies"). The Defendants employed Plaintiff and Drivers to pick-up and deliver pharmaceutical and medical products. Plaintiff and Drivers were assigned designated routes for deliveries, with assignments being classified as "regularly scheduled deliveries" and "expedited deliveries." The Plaintiff and other Drivers were employees of Defendants under all economic realities and any other applicable, controlling legal standards. The Defendants willfully, intentionally, and knowingly improperly misclassified Plaintiff and other Drivers as "independent contractors" as part of a scheme to avoid their wage payment obligations under Federal and State laws. The Defendants required the Plaintiff and other Drivers to work more than 40 hours per week. In particular, the Defendants had the Plaintiff and other Drivers work seven days a week in doing the prescription delivery to the Defendants' customers, and Plaintiff and other drivers routinely worked over 40 hours a week during the time period in question in this litigation. The Plaintiff was not paid overtime the entire time she worked for the Defendants, and she regularly worked over 40 hours a week. The Defendants failed to properly reimburse Drivers for delivery-related expenses. As a result of the automobile and other job-related expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Delivery Drivers, they were deprived of minimum wages guaranteed to them by the FLSA and Missouri law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former delivery driver for the Defendants. Omnicare is a pharmaceutical distribution company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq. Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC 308 Hutchinson Road Ellisville, MO 63011-2029 Phone: 314-541-0317 Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com casey@consumerprotectionlegal.com - and - Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com ORLANDO HEALTH: Cyr Files Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orlando Health, Inc. The case is styled as Christine Cyr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Orlando Health, Inc. doing business as: Bayfront Health St. Petersburg, Case No. 8:23-cv-00588-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla., March 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for violation of Computer Fraud & Abuse Act. Orlando Health -- http://www.orlandohealth.com/-- is a private, not-for-profit network of community and specialty hospitals based in Orlando, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com jcohen@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 - and - Dylan J. Gould, Esq. Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: dgould@msdlegal.com tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60630 Phone: (312) 283-3814 Fax: (773) 496-8617 Email: gklinger@masonllp.com - and - Joesph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON LAW FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Phone: (513) 715-8712 Fax: (614) 340-4620 Email: pkrzeski@billerkimble.com PENNSYLVANIA: Claims in Williams v. Wolf of SCI-Houtzdale Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. TOM WOLF, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:20-61 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Stephanie L. Haines of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania: a. dismissed all the claims asserted in the operative amended complaint against Defendants Thomas A. Placey, Edward E. Guido, Rhonda J. Smith, Michele A. Elline, Denis Lebo, Merle L. Ebert, Kimberly A. Metzger, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania; and b. denies the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The lawsuit is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 by the Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Houtzdale State Correctional Institution ("SCI-Houtzdale"). The Plaintiff's operative amended complaint asserts numerous federal and state law claims against 28 state and local judicial and executive officials of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania alleging the denial of access to courts and retaliation. The Plaintiff further challenges as unconstitutional a Pennsylvania statute authorizing deductions from inmate accounts to collect restitution, court costs and filing fees. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly for proceedings in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S. C. Section 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.D. The Plaintiff commenced the action on June 9, 2020 by filing a complaint seeking to bring a class action on behalf of all inmates currently incarcerated at SCI-Houtzdale alleging the denial of access to the coons, as well as challenging as unconstitutional prison deductions from inmate accounts to pay court-imposed penalties and fees. On July 21, 2020, Judge Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but with leave to amend. The Court entered an order on Jan. 15, 2021, adopting the R&R as the opinion of the Court. The Plaintiff filed the operative amended complaint on May 10, 2022. On Aug. 2. 2022, the Commonwealth Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment based on the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust. On Dec. 12, 2022, Judge Kelly entered an order notifying the parties that the motion to dismiss may be treated as a summary judgment motion on the exhaustion issue. The Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss/summary judgment motion on Jan. 12, 2023, along with a motion for leave to file another amended complaint, and a brief in support of his response and motion to amend. On Jan. 19, 2023, Judge Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending: that summary judgment he granted in favor of the Commonwealth Defendants based on the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust: that all claims against the remaining Defendants be dismissed for failure to make timely service; and, that the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint be denied. The Plaintiff was advised that he had 14 days from the date of service of the R&R to file written objections. The Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R&R on Feb. 7, 2023. Upon de novo review of Judge Kelly's R&R and an independent review of the record, Judge Haines accepts in whole the findings and recommendations of Judge Kelly. As Judge Kelly reasonably found, summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth Defendants is warranted. The Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, and has failed to show that he was inhibited from doing so, the Plaintiff also failed to timely serve the remaining Defendants, and failed to comply with Judge Kelly's subsequent show cause order directing him to do so, warranting dismissal of all claims against those Defendants under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In light of the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust, any attempt to amend the complaint as to any claim against any Defendant would be futile. For those reasons, and because the Plaintiff has failed to raise any meritorious objections to the R&R, Judge Kelly's findings and recommendations will be adopted in whole. Accordingly, Judge Haines overrules the Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Kelly's R&R. All claims asserted in the operative amended complaint against Defendants Thomas A. Placey, Edward E. Guido, Rhonda J. Smith, Michele A. Elline, Denis Lebo, Merle L. Ebert, Kimberly A. Metzger, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to make timely service on those Defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Kelly's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of the Court, as supplemented therein, that the Commonwealth Defendants' motion to dismiss, which has been treated as a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, is granted. A judgment order in favor of the Commonwealth Defendants will be entered separately in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a). Judge Haines denies the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4hsw5v from Leagle.com. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Reaches Settlement in Civil Unrest Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- phila.gov reports that the City has announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with a group of Plaintiffs who filed a Class Action lawsuit alleging physical and emotional injuries caused by the City's response to civil unrest and demonstrations related to the murder of George Floyd of Minneapolis on May 31 and June 1 of 2020. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include residents of West Philadelphia and individuals who participated in demonstrations calling for police accountability on I-676. The Parties have finalized the agreement and received court approval. Under the Agreement, a total of $9.25 million will be distributed among the 343 Plaintiffs. Additionally, a grant will provide $500,000-$600,000 to Bread & Roses Community Fund for free mental health counseling for West Philadelphia residents. Mental health counseling will be available to all residents within a radius of 52nd Street corridor in West Philadelphia, not just plaintiffs in the lawsuit. City officials provided statements in response to the announcement of the settlement. "After several years of negotiation, we are confident that this settlement will provide an opportunity for the plaintiffs to heal and move forward from the incidents on May 31, 2020 and June 1, 2020. We are thankful that as a part of the terms of the settlement, Bread & Roses Community Fund will have the opportunity to provide mental health counseling to affected residents," said Diana Cortes, City Solicitor. "The pain and trauma caused by a legacy of systemic racism and police brutality against Black and Brown Philadelphians is immeasurable. While this is just one step in the direction toward reconciliation, we hope this settlement will provide some healing from the harm experienced by people in their neighborhoods in West Philadelphia and during demonstrations on I-676 in 2020. We are proud of the progress made through the Pathways to Reform, Transformation, and Reconciliation initiative and continue to collaborate with the Philadelphia Police Department to implement reforms and keep our communities safe," said Mayor Jim Kenney. "The mass demonstrations that took place in Philadelphia and across the nation in response to the murder of George Floyd were unprecedented in scope. The Philadelphia Police Department is a learning organization, and we remain dedicated to moving forward in meaningful and productive ways. Along with city, state, and community stakeholders, we will continue to work non-stop towards improving what we as police do to protect the first amendment rights of protestors, keep our communities and officers safe, and to ultimately prove that we are committed to a higher standard," said Danielle Outlaw, Police Commissioner. [GN] PRICE WHACK LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Price Whack LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Price Whack LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02247 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Price Whack LLC -- https://pricewhack.com/ -- offers the hottest electronics, with whacked prices with incredible savings on a wide selection of products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: danalgottlieb@aol.com PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT: Kepler Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA KEPLER; and MELISSA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, dba PLAN B GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; FRANK GRUNDEL, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1- 3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01985 (C.D. Cal., March 16, 2023) seek to recover all tips kept by the Defendants, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff seeks to recover the return of all kickbacks that caused their payments to go below the minimum wage. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers. PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC owns and operates an entertainment clubs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. Justice D. Turner, Esq. CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN 8827 W. Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 8827 W. Olympic Blvd Telephone: (310) 273-1230 Email: kristensen@cz.law jturner@cz.law kristensenteam@cz.law PRODUCT LABS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed Price Product Labs, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Product Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02248 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Product Labs -- https://www.productlabs.ai/ -- offers e-commerce solutions, sales channel expansion, marketing, brand management, inventory and logistic services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: danalgottlieb@aol.com PRUCO LIFE: Moreland Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ Pruco Life Insurance Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2023, that the plaintiff Socorro Moreland filed a motion for class certification in December 2022. In June 2020, a putative class action complaint entitled Socorro Moreland v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America; Pruco Life Insurance Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Company failed to comply with California laws requiring that life insurance policies issued and delivered in California: (i) provide for a 60-day grace period pre-lapse during which a policy must stay in force; (ii) provide a 30-day written notice of pending lapse; and (iii) notify policyowners of their right to designate additional recipients for lapse notices. The complaint asserts claims for violation of California law, breach of contract, unfair competition, and bad faith violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks unspecified damages, declaratory and injunctive relief. In August 2020, defendants filed an answer to the complaint and a motion to stay the action pending the California Supreme Court's decision, in McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance, on the question of whether the California lapse statutes apply to policies that were in force when the statutes went into effect on January 1, 2013, or solely to policies issued after that date. The Moreland court granted defendants' motion to stay in October 2020. Subsequently, in August 2021, the California Supreme Court in McHugh determined that the California lapse statutes apply to policies that were in force as of January 1, 2013. In October 2021, the Moreland court lifted the stay order. In December 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Pruco Life Insurance Co. offers individual life insurance, variable life insurance,term life insurance, and individual variable annuities.[CC] PTT LLC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PTT, LLC. The case is styled as Omar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PTT, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02210 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. PTT, LLC doing business as High 5 Games, operates as an independent casino games provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com PUFFERBELLIES TOYS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PufferBellies Toys and Books For Children, LTD. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PufferBellies Toys and Books For Children, LTD., Case No. 1:23-cv-02392 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pufferbellies -- https://www.pufferbelliestoys.com/ -- is a toy store located in Downtown Staunton, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com REALPAGE INC: Spencer Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices ------------------------------------------------------------ Elaine Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RealPage, Inc., Sterling Apartment Homes, Air Communities REIT Corp, Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., Lincoln Property Co., Bozzuto Property Management, Cortland Partners LLC, FPI Management, Inc., Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc., Avenue5 Residential, LLC, Equity Residential, Camden Property Trust, and Essex Property Trust, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01019 (E.D. Pa., March 16, 2023), is brought challenging a cartel among lessors of multifamily residential real estate leases to artificially inflate the prices of multifamily residential real estate in the United States above competitive levels. RealPage's software, Yieldstar, is a pricing algorithm that monitors real-time lease-transaction data, allowing landlords to set rental prices based on their competition's prices. Yieldstar calculates the 'yield management' of the residential real estate industry and recommends price adjustments in response to certain market conditions such as demand or competition. The head of RealPage's Yieldstar program, explained that pricing software was developed to eliminate "empathy" in pricing apartment units. RealPage ensures that its Lessor clients understand that the Lessor clients must accept the algorithm's price to maximize their revenues. RealPage also induces its Lessor clients to artificially stress the rental market to improve rates. This has created a perpetually growing hub-and-spoke conspiracy, as more and more Lessors use RealPage, the more likely it is that RealPage has violated antitrust law. Before the introduction of pricing software, leasing agents would price and lease out apartments manually based on their own gut instincts and industry insights. This has changed overnight with the widespread adoption of pricing software. Around 2016, the industry's use of pricing software began to achieve "critical mass." As more and more Lessors began to use Yieldstar, the more data flowed into the company and affected its pricing algorithm. However, this was not the only way that RealPage grew its algorithm. In December 2017, RealPage acquired its biggest competitor Lease Rent Options, thereby gaining access to its client portfolio while at the same time shutting down competing pricing algorithms. RealPage continued a series of acquisitions, with the hopes of driving out competition and controlling more and more of the rental market, and as of October 7, 2022, RealPage maintains a portfolio of over 22 million units worldwide. There is an estimated 65 million rental homes in the United States rental market and RealPage software is used in at least 30% of the market. RealPage claimed that its software would increase revenue and decrease vacancies and that using its Yieldstar software would eliminate the risk of collusion that could occur with manual pricing. Ironically, Yieldstar appears to have done the exact opposite and provided a forum for leasing agents to collude and exchange competitive information in a much denser and faster manner than previously thought possible. Furthermore, at the same time that RealPage was increasing prices throughout the residential real estate pricing market, it was engaging in activities to artificially depress the supply of available units. During an earnings call in 2017, RealPage founder Steve Winn, discussed the profitability of raising rents while leaving some apartments vacant. This strategy would only push rents higher, costing the average tenant while unlawfully enriching Lessors. RealPage and its Lessor clients constitute a price-fixing cartel, and the revenue growth they have achieved has been the result of coordinated price fixing. Plaintiff by this action seeks compensatory damages to remediate Defendants' unlawful conduct in violation of the Sherman Act, and to provide damages as well as injunctive relief barring Defendants from using Yieldstar software, or any other form of rental pricing software, or for any other such relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current resident and lessee of Defendants, AIR and Sterling Apartment Homes. RealPage, Inc. provides property management software for the multifamily residential real estate industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald J. Rodos, Esq. Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Andrew J. Heo, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 2001 Market Street, Ste. 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-0600 Fax: (215) 963-0838 Email: grodos@barrack.com jbarrack@barrack.com aheo@barrack.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Sam M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Ste. 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-0800 Fax: (619) 230-1874 Email: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Paul D. Stickney, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste. 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: 972-387-4040 Facsimile: 972-387-4041 Email: bruce@swclaw.com judgestick@gmail.com REALTOR.COM: Loses Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------- John Woolley at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Realtor.com failed to convince a federal judge in California to dismiss a class action alleging the company broke the law by making prerecorded solicitation calls without customer consent. Priestley Faucett sued Move Inc., which does business as Realtor.com, claiming the real estate listings firm violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by repeatedly contacting him over the phone despite his placement on the Federal Trade Commission's National Do Not Call Registry. Faucett called the conduct an "invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands." [GN] REVENTICS LLC: Lopez Files Suit in D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reventics LLC. The case is styled as Hilda Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Reventics LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00655-DDD-MEH (D. Colo., March 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Personal Injury. Reventics -- https://reventics.com/ -- is a new-age, physician-focused clinical documentation improvement (CDI) and revenue cycle management (RCM) company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com RITE AID: Faces Holland Suit Over False Financial Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action complaint, David Holland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, John T. Standley, Darren Karst, Heyward Donigan, and Matthew C. Schroeder, Case No. 1:23-cv-00589 (N.D. Ohio, March 20, 2023), the Plaintiff alleges that the defendants have violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for their false and misleading statements about the business and financial condition of Rite Aid Corp. The Plaintiff claims that the defendants did not disclose the company was at higher risk of regulatory action and possible prosecution as a result of systematically and improperly filling unnecessary prescriptions at the time that the 2017 Annual Report was filed. Mr. Holland seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Rite Aid is incorporated in Delaware and its corporate headquarters are located at 1200 Intrepid Avenue, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19112. Rite Aid's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol RAD.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 200, Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 Email: dkaron@karonllc.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. The ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com RMS PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barnes Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- RONALD G. BARNES; GERALD BEHAN; MICHAEL DONALD; PAT EVANS; CODY HASTINGS; SCOTT KEY; JACOB LLOYD; JARED WEAVER; MICHAEL MICHALAK; KEVIN CHUNG; ADRIAN CARRANCEJIE; and SHAWN ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RMS PROTECTIVE SERVICES; MITHRAS PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.; LYNDON BRENTMALL; RIVAS SOLUTIONS, LLC; and ALLIED UNIVERSAL COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00342-NAD (N.D. Ala., March 17, 2023) alleges Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as security guards. RMS PROTECTIVE SERVICES provides security, investigative and surveillance services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Jacobs, Esq. J. Thomas Walker, Esq. Paisley Newsome, Esq. MAPLES TUCKER & JACOBS, LLC 2001 Park Place N. Suite 1325 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-2333 Facsimile: (205) 322-4962 Email: jack@mtandj.com S&P GLOBAL: Sued Over Investment Losses in Australian Court ----------------------------------------------------------- S&P Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2023, that a class action lawsuit was filed in Australia on August 7, 2020, against the company and a subsidiary of the company. A separate lawsuit was filed against the company and a subsidiary of the company in Australia on February 2, 2021, by two entities within the Basis Capital investment group. The lawsuits both relate to alleged investment losses in collateralized debt obligations rated by Ratings prior to the financial crisis. S&P Global Inc. is a provider of credit ratings, benchmarks, analytics and workflow solutions based in New York. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Court Declines to Relate Mays & Galley Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California declines to relate the cases captioned, LORENZO MAYS, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants, and ANTHONY GALLEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02081-TLN-KJN, 2:23-cv-00325-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Related Cases on Feb. 28, 2023. Examination of the captioned actions reveals they are not related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Judge Nunley states that pursuant Local Rule 123, two actions are related when they involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claim(s); when they involve the same transaction, property, or event; or when they "involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their assignment to the same Judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort. Further, if the Judge to whom the action with the lower or lowest number has been assigned determines that assignment of the actions to a single Judge is likely to effect a savings of judicial effort or other economies, that Judge is authorized to enter an order reassigning all higher numbered related actions to himself or herself. Judge Nunley finds that the captioned cases are not "related" within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Put simply, he says the cases involve different parties and underlying facts. Galley is a civil rights and wrongful death/survival action arising from the deliberate indifference by staff at the Sacramento County Main Jail to the Plaintiff's serious medical needs resulting in his death on Feb. 15, 2022. Mays, in contrast, was a class action lawsuit brought by unrelated Plaintiffs in 2018 that involved broad concerns about the conditions at Sacramento County Main Jail and resulted in a Consent Decree requiring implementation of a widescale, remedial plan to revise policies and improve conditions and medical care at the facility. While the cases may have some overlap, Judge Nunley does not believe Galley is sufficiently related to Mays to warrant assignment to the same judge. A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2r524j5r from Leagle.com. SPECTRUM HEALTH: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN R. MCNEILLY, et al., v. SPECTRUM HEALTH SYSTEM, THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF SPECTRUM HEALTH SYSTEM and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:20-cv-00870-JMB-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs file an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement, preliminary approval of class notice, approval of plan of allocation, and scheduling of a fairness hearing. Spectrum Health is a not-for-profit, integrated, managed care health care organization based in West Michigan. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42uYgDx 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 - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@ edelson-law.com STAPLES SUPERSTORE: Stipulation to Amend Class Cert Order OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN CARLOS CORRAL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of the Defendants in the State of California, v. STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE LLC, a limited liability company authorized to do business in the state of California, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01254-MCS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order granting stipulation to amend class certification order and granting leave for the Plaintiff Juan Carlos Corral to file fourth amended complaint. 1. The Court's Order re: the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C) (Order, ECF No. 64) shall be amended to certify one single "Wage Statement Class" which shall be defined as follows: "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant who worked for the Defendant in the State of California from November 12, 2020 to Sept. 17, 2021, and who received a "meal rest premium" from November 12, 2020 to September 17, 2021." 2. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file the fourth amended complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to the stipulation. 3. The Defendant may have 14 days from service of the fourth amended complaint to file a responsive pleading. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JoXjne at no extra charge.[CC] SUN VALLEY: Court Wants Supplement on Deal to Dismiss Pineda Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LETICIA PINEDA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUN VALLEY PACKING, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00169-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California orders the parties to file a supplement addressing the Diaz factors or providing legal argument why Court approval is not required to dismiss the action, no later than 30 days from the entry of her Order. On Jan. 31, 2020, the Defendant removed the putative class action from state court, which alleges various wage, hour, and other labor-related claims under the California Labor Code, as well as a representative action claim for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). On March 7, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the action without prejudice. Judge Grosjean will require a supplement in support of the stipulation. She explains that in the Court's last order, the Court noted that the parties were attempting to finalize a settlement agreement and instructed them, should they file a stipulation of dismissal, to include legal authority for why their claims may be resolved without further Court approval. The parties have failed to do so in their stipulation. Citing Diaz v. Tr. Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that Rule 23(e) applies before certification), Judge Grosjean says although the Court does not need to perform the kind of substantive oversight required when reviewing a settlement binding upon the class, it must determine whether class members would be prejudiced by: (1) class members' possible reliance on the filing of the action if they are likely to know of it either because of publicity or other circumstances, (2) lack of adequate time for class members to file other actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of limitations, (3) any settlement or concession of class interests made by the class representative or counsel in order to further their own interests. Accordingly, no later than 30 days from the entry of the Order, Judge Grosjean directs the parties to file a supplement addressing the Diaz factors or providing legal argument why Court approval is not required to dismiss the action. A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yn5z9f8f from Leagle.com. SVB FINANCIAL: Kirby McInerney Files Investors Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby McInerney LLP announced a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who acquired SVB Financial Group securities during the period from June 16, 2021, through March 10, 2023 (the class period). Investors have until May 12 to apply to the court to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit. SVB is the holding company for Silicon Valley Bank, a commercial bank that served emerging growth and middle-market growth companies in targeted niches, focusing on the technology and life sciences industries. The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the class period, the defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors (1) the risks presented by impending rising interest rates, (2) that an environment with high interest rates would be worse off for SVB than banks that did not cater to tech startups and venture capital-backed companies; and (3) that it was particularly susceptible to a bank run if its investments were negatively affected by rising interest rates.[GN] SYNGENTA CROP: River Island Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- River Island, Inc., on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated persons and entities v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, AG, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA CORP., and CORTEVA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00242 (M.D.N.C., March 17, 2023), is brought for violations of the United States antitrust laws and the antitrust laws, consumer protection and unfair trade practices laws, and unjust enrichment common laws of several states. The Defendants manufacture several crop protection products ("CPPs;" specifically, herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) used by numerous American farmers, including Plaintiff. Defendants' CPPs and the active ingredients contained in them enjoyed a period of patent protection and regulatory protection under which they were lawfully protected from competition. Once these protection periods expired, competing generic manufacturers were allowed to produce their own versions of the CPPs, which typically drastically reduces the price of the CPPs. Here, to maintain their market dominance after their patent and regulatory protection of their CPPs expired, Defendants, from January 1, 2017 to the present (the "Relevant Period" or "Class Period") have used (and continue to use) restrictive agreements disguised as "loyalty programs" with large agricultural products distributors and retailers to block the availability of CPPs to farmers containing lower-priced generic versions of the following active ingredients ("AIs"): Syngenta's MESOTRIONE, AZOXYSTROBIN, and METOLACHLOR, and Corteva's OXAMYL, RIMSULFURON, and ACETOCHLOR (collectively, the "Relevant AIs"). Under these "loyalty programs," the 0Defendants made substantial payments to distributors, and in certain cases, retailers, in exchange for the distributors' and retailers' agreement to strictly limit their purchases of--and thereby prevent widespread distribution of--generic versions of the Defendants' CPPs containing the Relevant AIs, ensuring that Defendants' far more expensive brand-name CPPs would be the vast majority of what the distributors and retailers purchased and sold to their customers. Since a small number of major distributors control a very large share of the CPP sales to retailers that, in turn, sell the CPPs to farmers, and since some of the distributors also own their own retail outlets, when there is a loyalty program in effect for a certain CPP manufactured by Defendants containing the Relevant AIs, the generic CPP manufacturers are foreclosed from nearly all the retail market for such CPP. When there is a loyalty program in place for a particular CPP manufactured by Defendants containing the Relevant AIs, the generic CPP manufacturers can typically only sell much smaller volumes of such CPP, or often cannot sell it profitably at all— forcing them to exit the market or refrain from entering the market in the first place. The Defendants' loyalty programs have negatively impacted the CPP market in the following ways (and continue to do so): the Defendants are able to maintain a near-monopoly for the sales of each of their CPPs containing the Relevant AIs even though patent and regulatory protection have expired and there should be open competition from generic CPP manufacturers, the Defendants are able to continue to charge much higher prices for their CPPs containing the Relevant AIs as a result of excluding most generic competition, generating supra competitive profits, the Defendants share a portion of their supra competitive profits with distributors and retailers to ensure their cooperation with this scheme, farmers pay much higher prices for CPPs containing the Relevant AIs than they otherwise would pay if there was free and open competition but for Defendants' wrongful conduct, and generic CPPs containing the Relevant AIs are also priced higher than they would be priced if there were free and open competition but for the Defendants' wrongful conduct. The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced competition in the market for the CPPs containing the Relevant AIs, thereby artificially inflating the prices of such CPPs and of the CPPs manufactured by Defendants' generic competitors. Plaintiff and the Class member farmers who purchased CPPs containing the Relevant AIs have been (and continue to be) injured by paying artificially inflated prices for such CPPs—for which they are entitled to compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff River Island, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation and farming operation based in Monroe, North Carolina, that purchased CPPs containing one or more of the Relevant AIs during the Relevant Period. The Defendants manufacture several crop protection products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin G. Williams, Esq. Alan M. Ruley, Esq. BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A. P.O. Box 21029 Winston-Salem, NC 27120-1029 Phone: (336) 722-3700 Email: kwilliams@belldavispitt.com aruley@belldavispitt.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. Matthew P. McCahill, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. Jason A. Uris, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 687-1980 Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com mmccahill@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com juris@kaplanfox.com SYNGENTA CROP: Vann Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Gary N. Vann, On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons and entities v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, AG, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA CORP., and CORTEVA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00244 (M.D.N.C., March 17, 2023), is brought for violations of the United States antitrust laws and the antitrust laws, consumer protection and unfair trade practices laws, and unjust enrichment common laws of several states. The Defendants manufacture several crop protection products ("CPPs;" specifically, herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) used by numerous American farmers, including Plaintiff. Defendants' CPPs and the active ingredients contained in them enjoyed a period of patent protection and regulatory protection under which they were lawfully protected from competition. Once these protection periods expired, competing generic manufacturers were allowed to produce their own versions of the CPPs, which typically drastically reduces the price of the CPPs. Here, to maintain their market dominance after their patent and regulatory protection of their CPPs expired, Defendants, from January 1, 2017 to the present (the "Relevant Period" or "Class Period") have used (and continue to use) restrictive agreements disguised as "loyalty programs" with large agricultural products distributors and retailers to block the availability of CPPs to farmers containing lower-priced generic versions of the following active ingredients ("AIs"): Syngenta's MESOTRIONE, AZOXYSTROBIN, and METOLACHLOR, and Corteva's OXAMYL, RIMSULFURON, and ACETOCHLOR (collectively, the "Relevant AIs"). Under these "loyalty programs," the 0Defendants made substantial payments to distributors, and in certain cases, retailers, in exchange for the distributors' and retailers' agreement to strictly limit their purchases of--and thereby prevent widespread distribution of--generic versions of the Defendants' CPPs containing the Relevant AIs, ensuring that Defendants' far more expensive brand-name CPPs would be the vast majority of what the distributors and retailers purchased and sold to their customers. Since a small number of major distributors control a very large share of the CPP sales to retailers that, in turn, sell the CPPs to farmers, and since some of the distributors also own their own retail outlets, when there is a loyalty program in effect for a certain CPP manufactured by Defendants containing the Relevant AIs, the generic CPP manufacturers are foreclosed from nearly all the retail market for such CPP. When there is a loyalty program in place for a particular CPP manufactured by Defendants containing the Relevant AIs, the generic CPP manufacturers can typically only sell much smaller volumes of such CPP, or often cannot sell it profitably at all--forcing them to exit the market or refrain from entering the market in the first place. The Defendants' loyalty programs have negatively impacted the CPP market in the following ways (and continue to do so): the Defendants are able to maintain a near-monopoly for the sales of each of their CPPs containing the Relevant AIs even though patent and regulatory protection have expired and there should be open competition from generic CPP manufacturers, the Defendants are able to continue to charge much higher prices for their CPPs containing the Relevant AIs as a result of excluding most generic competition, generating supra competitive profits, the Defendants share a portion of their supra competitive profits with distributors and retailers to ensure their cooperation with this scheme, farmers pay much higher prices for CPPs containing the Relevant AIs than they otherwise would pay if there was free and open competition but for Defendants' wrongful conduct, and generic CPPs containing the Relevant AIs are also priced higher than they would be priced if there were free and open competition but for the Defendants' wrongful conduct. The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced competition in the market for the CPPs containing the Relevant AIs, thereby artificially inflating the prices of such CPPs and of the CPPs manufactured by Defendants' generic competitors. Plaintiff and the Class member farmers who purchased CPPs containing the Relevant AIs have been (and continue to be) injured by paying artificially inflated prices for such CPPs—for which they are entitled to compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased CPPs containing one or more of the Relevant AIs during the Relevant Period. The Defendants manufacture several crop protection products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin G. Williams, Esq. Alan M. Ruley, Esq. BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A. P.O. Box 21029 Winston-Salem, NC 27120-1029 Phone: (336) 722-3700 Email: kwilliams@belldavispitt.com aruley@belldavispitt.com T.D. BROOKS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against T.D. Brooks, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. T.D. Brooks, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02289 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. T.D. Brooks, Inc. (trade name Sunrise Surf Shop) is in the Sports Apparel business.[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 TD BANK: Filing of Class Status Bid Due May 24, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMAZING FISHSTORE LLC d/b/a KRMS FARMS and WILDER MEDIA CT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00958-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Ann Marie Donio entered an order a scheduling order as follows: 1. The time within which to file a motion to amend the pleadings or a motion to join new parties will expire on June 2, 2023. 2. The Court will conduct a telephone status conference on June 13, 2023 at 2:30 P.M. 3. Pretrial factual discovery as to merit and class certification shall be concluded by November 30, 2023, except that discovery deadlines as to damages and class membership concerning individual member's accounts and transactional information, as set forth on the record, shall be set following resolution of any motion for class certification. 4. All depositions are to be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the order of Judge Gawthrop, in Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525 (E.D. Pa. 1993). 5. All expert reports and expert disclosures as to class certification and liability pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of the Plaintiffs shall be served not later than January 19, 2024. 6. Dispositive motions and motions as to class certification shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than May 24, 2024. TD Bank provides banking services. The Company offers online banking, mortgages, loans, insurance, and investment management services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FCOCoC at no extra charge.[CC] TOPATO CORPORATION: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Topato Corporation. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Topato Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-02399 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Topato Corporation -- https://topatoco.com/ -- is a widely recognized online retailer of webcomics and related merchandise.[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 TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phan Class Cert. Support Reply Stricken -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG PHAN, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order striking the plaintiff's reply in support of her motion for class certification for noncompliance with the court's standing orders. On March 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a reply in support of her motion for class certification. The brief has thirteen single-spaced footnotes. It does not comply with the Court's Standing Orders, the Court says. Transamerica Premier is a life insurance company incorporated under Iowa law. A copy of the Court's order dated March 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FCNvFp at no extra charge.[CC] TRUMP CORPORATION: McKoy, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE MCKOY, MARKUS FRAZIER, and LYNN CHADWICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE TRUMP CORPORATION, DONALD J. TRUMP, in his personal capacity, DONALD TRUMP, JR., ERIC TRUMP, and IVANKA TRUMP, Case No. 1:18-cv-09936-LGS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order certifying the following Rule 23(b)(3) classes. -- Common Law Class All the Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class consisting of all persons who made payments to ACN to participate in the IBO Opportunity but did not recoup from ACN an amount equal to or more than those payments, for purposes of asserting common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims;" -- California Class The Plaintiff Catherine McKoy seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons in California who made payments to ACN to participate in the IBO Opportunity but did not recoup from ACN an amount equal to or more than those payments, for purposes of asserting statutory claims under the California False Advertising Law ("FAL") and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); -- Maryland Class The Plaintiff Markus Frazier seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons in Maryland who made payments to ACN to participate in the IBO Opportunity but did not recoup from ACN an amount equal to or more than those payments, for purposes of asserting statutory claims under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"); and -- Pennsylvania Class The Plaintiff Lynn Chadwick seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons in Pennsylvania who made payments to ACN to participate in the IBO Opportunity but did not recoup from ACN an amount equal to or more than those payments, for purposes of asserting statutory claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"). In the alternative, the Plaintiffs will move this Court of an order certifying a class as to the issues of the falsity and materiality of the Defendant Donald J. Trump's statements pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4). A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated March 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40md4lP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq. John C. Quinn, Esq. Christopher Le Coney, Esq. Maximillian L. Feldman, Esq. KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, 63rd Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 - and - Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq. Nick Bourland, Esq. Katherine Rosenfeld, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue at Rockefeller Center New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 763-5000 UNIFIN INC: Winston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin Inc. The case is styled as Walt Winston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifin Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00915 (S.D. Ill., March 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Unifin Inc. -- https://unifininc.com/ -- is a veteran-owned, full-service Business Process Outsource (BPO) and Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) firm led by a strong team of industry professionals with more than 100 years of combined industry experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com UNION SECURITY: Parties Seek to Modify Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03805-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the class certification briefing schedule, expanding the page limits on the Plaintiff's reply in support of her Motion for Class Certification, and permitting Sun Life and USIC to file a sur-reply. On January 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her Motion. Sun Life and USIC filed their opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion on February 28, 2023. Union Security is a national provider of Medicare Supplement insurance solutions that help customers manage and budget for their health care needs. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40nQQjC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Harrison Garner, Esq. Melanie J. Garner, Esq. THE GARNER FIRM, LTD. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 645-5955 Facsimile: (215) 645-5960 E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com melanie@garnerltd.com - and - R. Joseph Barton, Esq. BARTON & DOWNES, LLP 1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com - and - Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq. 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 357-9700 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark E. Schmidtke, Esq. Ann-Martha Andrews, Esq. Byrne J. Decker, Esq. Robert C. Perryman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 56 S. Washington St., Suite 302 Valparaiso, IN 46383 Telephone: (219) 242-8668 E-mail: mark.schmidtke@ogletree.com ann.andrews@ogletreedeakins.com byrne.decker@ogletree.com Robert.Perryman@ogletreedeakins.com UNITED STATES: Asylum Seekers File Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASYLUM SEEKERS TRYING TO ASSURE THEIR SAFETY, v. TAE D. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00163-RCL (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order: 1. certifying the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), Rule 23(b)(2) or Rule 23(b)(3): "All 6,252 noncitizens whose Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") was published on ICE.gov on November 28, 2022. 2. appointing the them ROE No. 1- ROE No. 49 as class representatives; and 3. appointing as class counsel the below-listed attorneys from Avagyan Law Firm, BOS Legal, LLC, Begovich Law & Mediation APC, Morrison Urena, L.C., Mwose Law Office, and Owings MacNorlin LLC. On November 28, 2022, unknown the Defendant JOHN DOE 1 published the PII of 6,252 noncitizens in, or formerly in, ICE custody to the ICE public-facing website, ice.gov. JOHN DOE 1 published the PII on a page where ICE regularly publishes detention statistics. The published PII included the names, countries of origin, dates of birth, A-numbers, and detention locations in the United States of noncitizens identified as asylum seekers who were initially in expedited removal proceedings. The Plaintiffs, who were among the affected 6,252 noncitizens, came to the United States to seek asylum and were thereafter detained in ICE custody at different facilities. The Plaintiffs are natives of Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Tunisia, and Venezuela. The Defendants' action put the Plaintiffs, and other affected noncitizens in, or formerly in, ICE custody in danger, both today and in the future. Many of them came to the United States to flee gang violence, government retaliation, persecution, and torture. By publishing the Plaintiffs' PII, the Defendants created danger in the form of increased risk that the Plaintiffs' persecutors will have more private knowledge about the Plaintiffs and their attempts to seek asylum. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LDIkIV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Curtis Lee Morrison, Esq. MORRISON URENA, L.C. 8910 University Center Lane, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (323) 489-5688 E-mail: curtis@morrisonurena.com - and - Sarah W. H. Owings OWINGS MACNORLIN LLC Atlanta, GA 30316 Telephone: (470) 444-9531 E-mail: sarah@omimm.com - and - Ogor Winnie Okoye BOS LEGAL, LLC 41 Ocean Street, Unit 1 Lynn, MA 01902 Telephone: (781) 596-0151 E-mail: owo@boslegals.com - and - Ndeto K. Mwose MWOSE LAW OFFICE 2610 E. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, IN 46615 Telephone: (877) 648-8472 E-mail: ndeto@mwoselaw.com - and - Tehmina Avagyan, Esq. AVAGYAN LAW FIRM 116 E. Broadway Ste 203 Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (805) 600-0006 E-mail: tehmina@avagyanlaw.com - and - Samantha L. Begovich, Esq. Michael Begovich, Esq. BEGOVICH LAW & MEDIATION 9984 Scripps Ranch Blvd., Suite 511 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (786) 505-6323 E-mail: BegovichLaw@gmail.com BegovichLaw1@gmail.com UNITED STATES: Duty to Answer Naltner's Bid for Class Cert. Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RICHARD NALTNER, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-1064 (Fed. Cl.), Judge Eleni M. Roumel of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims grants the Defendant's Motion to Stay Its Duty to File a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. There are three motions currently pending before the Court. The first is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, which contends that Plaintiffs Richard Naltner and David Deetz are not entitled to overtime back pay as a matter of law. The second is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, filed on March 1, 2023. In the Class Motion, the Plaintiffs move the Court under Rule 23 to certify a class of United States Secret Service investigators and officers who were denied overtime pay under certain situations. The current Scheduling Order in place did not set a date for the filing of the Class Motion. The Plaintiffs filed the Class Motion in anticipation of the Court potentially denying the pending Government summary judgment. The third motion -- and the one at issue in the Order -- is the Stay Motion, filed on March 3, 2023, shortly after the Plaintiffs had filed their Class Motion. In the Stay Motion, the Defendant moves the Court to stay briefing on the Class Motion until after the Court rules on the Defendant's pending Summary Judgment Motion. It argues a stay is appropriate because the merits of class certification may well depend on the outcome of the Government's motion for summary judgment. It notes that should the Court grant the Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion, the Class Motion will become moot. Alternatively, the Defendant contends that even if the Court were to deny its Summary Judgment Motion, the opinion may inform whether the Plaintiffs' claims "meet the class action requirements -- including commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendant's Stay Motion, arguing the motion is the Government's latest delay tactic in the instant litigation. After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Roumel concludes there is good cause to stay briefing on the Class Motion. Accordingly, she grants Defendant's Motion to Stay. As a preliminary matter, Judge Roumel holds that granting the Stay Motion is consistent with the sequence of the case thus far. Even setting aside the parties' representations regarding the case schedule, a stay of the Class Motion would still be appropriate. It would be inefficient to forge ahead on the class certification question when the Plaintiffs' entitlement to relief is not yet decided, especially where the Summary Judgment Motion will be ripe for adjudication shortly. Should the Court grant the Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion, the Class Motion will be moot. Accordingly, deferring briefing and consideration of the Class Motion will further judicial and litigant economy. Additionally, even if the Court were to ultimately deny summary judgment, the Court's ruling may impact whether the Plaintiffs are sufficient class representatives under Rule 23(a). Indeed, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that Horvath involved the same claim set forth in the case. As consideration of the Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion may impact the merits of class certification, it is prudent to stay briefing on the Class Motion. Accordingly, Judge Roumel grants the Stay Motion. The Defendant will file its response to the Plaintiffs' Class Motion within 14 days of the Court's ruling on the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4js2the9 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: White 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 Michael White, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. USA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00383-KCD (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl., March 17, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Tucker Act. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy S. Spiegel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY SPIEGEL 1 South Broad St., Ste. 1500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 609-3154 Email: spiegel@jeremyspiegellaw.com UPSPRING LLC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UpSpring LLC. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UpSpring LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02338 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. UPSPRING -- https://www.myupspring.com/ -- formerly Social Enterprise Associates, is a consulting firm helping entrepreneurs realize their dreams and grow their organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com USIC LOCATING: Brandon Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action complaint, Clifford Brandon, Raymond O'Donnell and Scott Nerge, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. USIC Locating Services, LLC, USIC, LLC, Reconn Holdings, LLC, and Protek Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00092 (S.D. Tex., March 20, 2023), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and several state labor laws. Brandon et al say that USIC failed to pay them for the time they spent attending required project meetings, traveling to and from first and last job sites, lunch breaks, mapping out their route to complete inspections efficiently, reading and responding to work emails, making calls and working while traveling to job sites, loading and unloading their vehicles, and preparing reports at the end of their shift. They also claim that USIC did not pay them the regular rate to calculate overtime compensation, which resulted in unpaid overtime compensation owed to them or those similarly situated. They also allege that USIC failed to comply the wage notice and wage payment requirements as required by state labor laws. Brandon et al bring this class action on behalf of themselves and other non-exempt field employees to recover unpaid overtime and other damages. USIC offers underground utility locating services and serves the utilities and telecommunications companies in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com VANTAGE POINT: Deadline to Reply to Class Cert. Temporarily Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WEISTER, v. VANTAGE POINT AT, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-01250-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday entered an order temporarily staying VantagePoint's deadline to respond to the motion for class certification pending resolution of the motion to abate. Alleging that Weister's counsel violates a stipulated protective order and represents a the Plaintiff in two parallel class actions, VantagePoint moves for an order holding Weister's counsel in contempt. Also, because resolution of the contempt motion will reportedly afford the "information and clarity" necessary to respond to (and resolve) Weister's motion to certify a class, VantagePoint files a time-sensitive motion to abate the briefing on class certification until after an order resolves the contempt motion. Weister reportedly opposes abatement but has not responded to the motion. A copy of the Court's order dated March 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FD6q2B at no extra charge.[CC] VESTRA LABS: Abercrombie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vestra Labs LLC, et al. case is styled as Adriana Breyonna Marie Abercrombie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vestra Labs LLC, Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 34-2023-00336600-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 21, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Vestra Labs LLC -- https://vestra-labs.com/ -- is a laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 WE BE WINGS: Caudill Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action complaint, Haylee Caudill, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. We Be Wings, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00085-WHR-PBS (S.D. Ohio, March 20, 2023), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio law. Ms. Caudill claims that We Be Wings, LLC. failed to pay minimum wage and overtime in violation FLSA. She also claims that the We Be Wings, LLC. has a policy and practice of paying her sub-minimum, tip-credit wages while requiring her to perform work that does not provide service to customers for whom tipped employees receive tips and does not directly support tip-producing work. This policy violates the FLSA and Ohio law, says the Plaintiff. We Be Wings, LLC. was a corporation duly licensed to transact business in the state of Ohio. It owns and operates a chain of franchised Roosters restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW, LLC. 8 N. Court St., Suite 403 Athens, OH 45701 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza Building - Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com WELLS FARGO: Judge Denied Motion to Dismiss Ponzi Scheme Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alanna Madden at courthousenews.com reports that Wells Fargo cannot evade responsibility for its role in a so-called "Mormon Ponzi scheme," a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro denied the banking giant's motion to dismiss class action claims for violations of the Uniform Fiduciaries Act and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and fraud - all of which are tied to the 2022 arrests of Jeffrey Judd and lawyer Matthew Beasley who allegedly ran a $500 million Ponzi scheme that preyed upon members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Journalist Lizzie Johnson of The Washington Post reported the details in legacy of investigative reporter Jeff German from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. According to Johnson, the con began with Beasley's gambling addiction in 2016, when he approached Judd with an "investment opportunity" to bridge loans for slip-and-fall victims waiting for the settlements. The scheme called for Judd to pay in $50,000 and Beasley would pay out $60,000 within 45 days. Judd bit, bringing more investors with him over the years to amass the millions. The only problem: there were no slip-and-fall victims. According to the class action filed against Wells Fargo in 2022, for five years, the scheme "enticed investors to pay large sums for the opportunity to buy shares of future personal injury settlements." The men promised investors significant, annualized rates of return with little to no risk and that their funds would be held in an attorney trust fund for safety. That account was at Wells Fargo. "The account statements for the attorney trust account at Wells Fargo show unmistakable signs of a Ponzi scheme," lead plaintiff Barrett Henzel says in the class action. "While privy to all that activity, Wells Fargo opted not to investigate or warn investors, and instead continued to provide its services to Beasley." Between 2017 and 2022, over 900 people - mostly of the Mormon faith - invested an estimated $500 million into the scheme. Meanwhile, SEC forensic accounting showed Beasley sent his bookie over $6.7 million, according to Johnson. That's in addition to his $3.8 million house in South Lake Tahoe, California, and roughly $1.3 million spent on an RV, a Bentley, a boat and two jet skis. Judd told the FBI that he didn't know it was a Ponzi scheme. He did, however, receive at least $315 million from the whole ordeal and, at one point, addressed the investment in a text message as an "illegal business." Johnson reported the government has recovered around $90 million in investor funds through seized assets. "The law does not allow Wells Fargo to ignore such obvious signs of fraud. Nor does the law permit Wells Fargo to continue to offer its services uninterrupted while refusing to investigate or take any other action to protect the victims of the fraud. Yet that is precisely what Wells Fargo did," Hezel says in the complaint, adding that the men siphoned so much money, that by the time the FBI took action, only $4 million remained in the account. Judge Navarro noted Wells Fargo had actual knowledge of the fraudulent scheme and executed requested banking transactions despite knowing as much, and denied the bank's motion to dismiss all but one claim. "Indeed, Wells Fargo allegedly continued to assist in the operation of the scheme even after Wells Fargo employees raised concerns about the IOLTA," Navarro wrote in the order issued. "The court finds that plaintiffs adequately alleged the substantial assistance prong." Navarro also found the class sufficiently pleaded claims against the bank for aiding and betting breach of fiduciary duty - given that class members trusted Beasley as an attorney to hold their money within an attorney bank account - as well as a claim under the Uniform Fiduciaries Act. According to Navarro, a bank in Nevada is liable under the Uniform Fiduciaries Act when a "bank pays a check with actual knowledge that a fiduciary is committing a breach of its obligations as fiduciary in drawing the check or with knowledge of facts that its action in paying the check amounts to bad faith." She added: "The court has already determined that plaintiffs adequately alleged that Beasley had a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs and that Wells Fargo had actual knowledge of the scheme." [GN] WESTERN MANAGEMENT: Henderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ebone Henderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Western Management, LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00336596-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 21, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Western Management -- https://www.westernm.com/ -- is a family estate which hold interests in privately held partnership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ivan P. Medina, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 W Olympic Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3614 Phone: 310-553-3600 Fax: 310-553-3603 Email: imedina@nourmandlawfirm.com WHITE HOUSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, King Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- NINA KING; and BRIANNA ALVAREX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE HOUSE BLACKMARKET, INC., Case No. 604418/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., March 16, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as staff. WHITE HOUSE BLACKMARKET, INC. sells private label women's casual clothing and related accessories. The Company offers tops, pants, shorts, skirts, and dresses. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com XL FLEET: Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re XL Fleet Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02002-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following Class: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly-traded securities of XL Fleet Corp. (formerly known as Pivotal Investment Corporation II), between September 18, 2020 and March 31, 2021, both dates inclusive." Excluded from the Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) current and former officers, employees, and directors of XL Fleet Corp. and Pivotal Investment Corporation II; (iii) blood relatives and household members of any person excluded under (i) or (ii); and (iv) any entities affiliated with, controlled by, or more than 10% owned by, any person excluded under (i) through (iii); and (v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any person or entity excluded under (i) through (iv). 2. Appointing Lead the Plaintiff Delton Rowe and additional the Plaintiffs Jeffrey Suh, Carl Enslin, Simone Heridis, and Soraya Heridis (née Matamoros) as Class Representatives; 3. Appointing Lead Counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class Counsel; and 4. Granting such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper. XL Fleet is a provider of electrified powertrain solutions for commercial fleet vehicles. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/400cKtt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Garth Spencer, Esq. Christopher Fallon, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, 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: rprongay@glancylaw.com gspencer@glancylaw.com cfallon@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 YUBA COUNTY, CA: 2nd Amended Consent Decree in Hedrick Suit OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DERRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON, KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN C. CANADA, DARRY TYRONE PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of Yuba County; Lieutenant FRED J. ASBY, as Yuba County Jailer; JAMES PHARRIS, ROY LANDERMAN, DOUG WALTZ, HAROLD J. "SAM" SPERBEK, JAMES MARTIN, as members of the YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendants, Case No. 2:76-CV-00162-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, grants the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Second Amended Consent Decree and Request for Expedited Hearing. The Joint Motion came on for hearing before the Court on March 8, 2023. Judge Brennan has considered the pleadings on the Joint Motion, oral argument on the Joint Motion, and the record in the case. He finds that the Second Amended Consent Decree ("SACD") falls within the range of possible approval and is sufficiently fair to warrant the dissemination of notice to the class members apprising them of the SACD. The SACD is granted preliminary approval and has the full force and effect of an order of the Court. A hearing is appropriate to consider whether the Court should grant final approval to the SACD, and to allow adequate time for the members of the class, or their counsel, to support or oppose the SACD. The parties' request to expedite the hearing on the Joint Motion for March 8, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., is granted. The Notice of Second Amended Consent Decree is approved. Within three days of the Order, the Defendants must post the Notice (1) on the County's official website (www.co.yuba.ca.us/); and (2) in all Jail facilities operated by the Defendants, including, but not limited to, in all dayrooms, all medical clinic spaces, the visiting area, and the intake area in the Yuba County Jail. Copies of the SACD will be available in the Jail library and made available to class members upon request. Dissemination of the Notice as provided is authorized and approved. No later than 10 days after the Order, the Defendants must file and serve on the Plaintiffs' counsel an affidavit affirming that they published notice as required in the Court's order. Any member of the class may write to the Court about whether the settlement is fair. The Court will consider written communications when deciding whether to approve the settlement. Comments must include at the top of the first page the case name, Hedrick v. Grant, E.D. Cal. No. 2:76-cv-00162-JAM-EFB. Comments must be postmarked no later than thirty-six (36) days after the issuance of this Order, and sent to the following address: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Eastern District of California 501 I Street Sacramento, CA 9581 A final approval hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, will be in Courtroom 8 on May 17, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. A joint memorandum of points and authorities in support of final approval will be filed by April 19, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's March 8, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2j6zzdmf from Leagle.com. CARTER C. WHITE -- ccwhite@ucdavis.edu -- KING HALL CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC, U.C. Davis School of Law, Davis, California, MICHAEL W. BIEN -- bbien-kahn@rbgg.com -- GAY C. GRUNFELD -- ggrunfeld@rbgg.com -- MICHAEL FREEDMAN -- mfreedman@rbgg.com -- ALEXANDER GOURSE, ROSEN BIEN, GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. CARL L. FESSENDEN -- cfessenden@porterscott.com -- JOHN R. WHITEFLEET -- jwhitefleet@porterscott.com -- PORTER | SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Sacramento, California, MICHAEL J. CICCOZZI, JOSEPH F. LARMOUR, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF YUBA, Marysville, California, Attorneys for the Defendants. ZENDESK INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 19 ----------------------------------------------------------- Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC and Kahn Swick & Foti LLC have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-1243, on behalf of public common shareholders of Zendesk, Inc. ("Zendesk" or the "Company") who held Zendesk securities as of the record date, August 4, 2022 (the "Class Period"), and who were harmed by Zendesk and its Board of Directors' alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), in connection with the acquisition of Zendesk by affiliates of the funds advised by Hellman & Friedman LLC and Permira Advisers LLC (the "Merger"). Under the terms of the Merger, each share of Zendesk common stock owned was converted into the right to receive $77.50 in cash per share (the "Merger Consideration"). The Complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration was inadequate and that the Definitive Proxy Statement issued by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2022, provided stockholders with materially incomplete and misleading information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Merger was completed on November 22, 2022. Mr. Juan Monteverde is available to personally discuss this case with you, and if you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 19, 2023. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/zendesk-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, and 2022, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2022 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients - including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California, Louisiana and New Jersey. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] ZENDESK INC: Faces Bailey Suit Over Unfair Merger Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN BAILEY; and SCOTT FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZENDESK, INC.; MIKKEL SVANE; ARCHANA AGRAWAL; CARL BASS; MICHAEL CURTIS; MICHAEL FRANDSEN; BRANDON GAYLE; STEVE JOHNSON; HILARIE KOPLOW–MCADAMS; THOMAS SZKUTAK; and MICHELLE WILSON, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01243 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2023) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the all-cash sale of Zendesk (the "Merger") to the affiliates of the funds advised by Hellman & Friedman LLC ("H&F") and Permira Advisers LLC ("Permira," and together with H&F, the "Consortium"). According to the complaint, on June 24, 2022, Zendesk, Zoro Bidco, Inc. ("Parent"), and Zoro Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement"), whereby the Consortium would acquire Zendesk at a price of $77.50 in cash per share of Zendesk common stock owned (the "Merger Consideration"). On November 22, 2022, the Merger was consummated, and pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Zendesk, with Zendesk surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. The consummation of the Merger caused Zendesk's shares to be cashed out and delisted from the NYSE, thereby denying shareholders the ability to profit from the Company's future growth, says the suit. ZENDESK, INC. operates as a software company. The Company designs and develops software to improve customer relationships. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 446-6652 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Rossella Scarpa, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com rscarpa@monteverdelaw.com - and - Michael Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 Email: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com ZOLL MEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Priddy Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PRIDDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10588 (D. Mass., March 16, 2023) is a class action arising out of the cyberattack and data breach ("Data Breach") on ZOLL's network that resulted in unauthorized access to patient data. According to the complaint, as a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately 1,004,443 Class Members1 suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. Defendant's inadequate safeguarding, including failure to encrypt, of his and Class Members' Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained, and for the Defendant's failure to (1) provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their Private Information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party, and (2) identify precisely what specific type of information was accessed, says the suit. ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION develops and markets medical devices and software solutions. The Company offers products that are used by health care professionals to provide pacing and defibrillation. Zoll also designs and markets software that automates collection and management of data for emergency medical service providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kurt J. Hagstrom, Esq. HAGSTROM LAW GROUP 66 N. Second Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Telephone: (508) 612-4677 Facsimile: (508) 207-9747 Email: kurt@hagstromlawgroup.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com ZWANGER & PESIRI: Sali Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nilgun Sali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZWANGER & PESIRI RADIOLOGY GROUP, LLP; VANVORST LAW FIRM, PLLC; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. 604536/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 17, 2023), is brought seeking redress for the illegal practices of Defendants, when attempting to collect an alleged debt from her, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Between 2018 and 2021, Mr. VanVorst served as Zwanger & Pesiri's General Counsel while also serving as its Chief Human Resources Officer for employees in dozens of Zwanger & Pesiri locations. In 2018, Zwanger & Pesiri devised a scheme in which it would cause collection letters to be sent to patients on VanVorst Law Firm letterhead. Since few recipients of the letters would know that Mr. VanVorst was employed as Zwanger & Pesiri's general counsel and director of human resources, they would conclude from the letters that they were from an independent third-party law firm and not from Zwanger & Pesiri. Although the scheme was designed to make it appear that an independent third-party law firm was collecting debts for Zwanger & Pesiri, the VanVorst Law Firm was not in fact independent of Zwanger & Pesiri. In 2018, the Plaintiff obtained radiologic services from Zwanger & Pesiri personal reasons. Sometime prior to December 17, 2018, Zwanger & Pesiri undertook to collect money from Plaintiff for the services ("the Debt"). On December 17, 2018, Zwanger & Pesiri caused a letter ("the Letter") to be sent to Plaintiff on VanVorst Law Firm letterhead. The Letter was Zwanger & Pesiri's first written communication to Plaintiff on VanVorst Law Firm letterhead. The Plaintiff received and opened the Letter and believed her alleged debt to Zwanger & Pesiri had been referred to an independent third party debt collection law firm. The Plaintiff was upset, distraught, and angry at receiving what she believed to be a letter from a third-party attorney debt collection letter and promptly sought the advice of an attorney, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a citizen of, and resided in, East Meadow, Nassau County, New York. Zwanger & Pesiri provides radiologic services at multiple offices in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Phone: (516) 522-2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 Email: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com - and - Francis R. Greene, Esq. GREENE CONSUMER LAW 1954 1st St. #154 Highland Park, IL 60035 Phone: 312-847-6979 Facsimile: 312-847-6978 Email: francis@greeneconsumerlaw.com [*] Waite Park May Join Class Action Suit Over Water Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Svejkovsky at wjon.com reports that Waite Park may be the latest central Minnesota community to join a class action lawsuit over contaminants found in the well water. During a meeting, the council will consider joining the lawsuit with the Minnesota Rural Water Association and the National Rural Water Association. There is no cost for the city to join the lawsuit. If a settlement is reached, the city would receive a portion of the settlement to help cover costs associated with reducing the PFAS levels in the city's water. City officials say they are continuing to work on ways to remedy the issue. Back in January, Sauk Rapids voted to join the class action lawsuit, which is currently moving through the federal court process. [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 ***