/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230405.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 5, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 69 Headlines ADAPTIVE RESEARCH: General Pretrial Management Entered in Luxwear ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: IDLC, et al., Win Class Certification AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Hamilton Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal Ruling AMC NETWORKS: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Vela Suit Says ARBOR REALTY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 26 ASSETCARE LLC: Weiss Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Letter ASSURANCE IQ: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 17, 2024 AUS INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Fernandez Suit Says AVIVA CANADA: Loses Bid to Quash Suit for COVID-Related BI Claims BLENDTEC INC: All Fact Discovery Must be Completed by July 14 BURGER KING: Administrative Bid to Seal Exhibits OK'd CALVERT'S EXPRESS: FLSA Settlement in Heitzman Gets Final Nod CANADA: Unions Urge Government to Settle Discrimination Class Suit CIRCLE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Coordinators' Minimum, OT Wages CITIGROUP INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice CLOSET WORLD: Faces Nabiyev Class Suit Over False Limited-Time Sale COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Goodman, et al., Seek Class Certification CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Fails to Pay Nurses' OT Wages Under FLSA CREDIT SUISSE: Ct. Certifies Securities Act Class in Set Capital CVS HEALTH: Wins Administrative Bid to Seal Confidential Documents DETROIT, MI: Howard Suit Seeks to Certify Homeowners Class DIGNITY HEALTH: Hooks Must File Class Certification Bid by May 5 DISH NETWORK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 22 EASSIT INC: Court Dismisses Lewis Suit without Prejudice EPIQ CORPORATE: Seeks July 6 Extension to File Class Cert. Response EXPERIAN INFO: Bid to Compel Arbitration OK'd in Alvarez Suit FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Bid for Rule 23 Class Status Tossed FASTTRACK RENT: Faces Taylor Wage-and-Hour Suit in California FIRSTENERGY CORP: PFP Must Produce Withheld Docs in Securities Suit FLOWERS FOODS: Bid for Decertification Denied in Ludlow Suit FORSTER GARBUS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Ross FDCPA Suit Denied GEICO GENERAL: Faces Suit Over Alleged Underpayment of Auto Claims GEICO: Court Awards $2.5MM in Attoryney's Fees GEICO: Russo Pending Class Cert Bid Terminated GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over "Chevy Shake" Defect GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in Norman's 2nd Amended Suit GRANITE SERVICES: Rodriguez Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal GRIDSUM HOLDING: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due May 12 HARMON STORES: Palmeri Sues Over Mass Layoff Without 60-Day Notice HELIOS CABLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Smith Suit Alleges HOME POINT: Al-Johar Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Suit HOWARD BARTON: Faces Ovalle ERISA Suit Over Unfair Del-Air Deal JOHN MCKOWEN: Class Settlement in Paulson Suit Gets Final Nod JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss Amended Hernandez Suit Granted JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Dismisses Hernandez Suit With Prejudice JP BODEN: Secretly Reports Visitor's Info to FB, Rodriguez Alleges KINDERFARMS LLC: Faces Noori Suit Over Kids' Medicine False Ads KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: $400K Deal in Martinez Suit Has Prelim. Nod KONING & ASSOCIATES: Willis Loses Class Certification Bid LATITUDE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach Allegations LLOYD'S OF LONDON: LAL, et al., Seek to Certify Class LYFT INC: S.D. New York Certifies Three Classes in Lowell Suit MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces Steamfitters Local Union Suit MALLINCKRODT PLC: Marrietta City Suit Dismissed MARICOPA, AZ: Houston Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot MATT MARTORELLO: Duggan Seeks to Impound Class Cert Reply Exhibit MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Vancouver School Says MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed Coolant Seal Defect MICHIGAN: Settlement Claim Forms Submission Due April 14 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: $45K Sanction Awarded to Seaman Against TSI NEW YORK, NY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Leslie Class Suit v. NYPD NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Team Ohio Seeks Appointment as Class Counsel NOVAVAX INC: Sinnathurai, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action ONLY NATURAL: Tice Sues Lomacchios for Misappropriation of Assets OUTDOOR GEAR: All Class Cert Discovery Must be Completed by Oct. 15 P.C. RICHARD: Douglass Suit Wins Rule 23 Class Certification PAYWARD INC: Singh Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics ROCKWELL COLLINS: Bid to Remand Alvarado Suit to State Court Denied ROMULUS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Swonger Says SALVATION ARMY: Loses Bid to Junk Geiser Suit SHAMROCK CABINET: Brandon, et al., Seek Approval of Settlement Deal SHANGHAI CAFE: Chen Is Entitled to Default Judgment, Court Says ST. LOUIS, MO: Parties in Robertson Must File Dismissal Papers STANLEY BLACK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 23 STANLEY BLACK: Faces Rammohan Suit Over 16% Day-Over-Day Share Drop STATE FARM: Appeals Partial Dismissal Ruling in Varela Suit STURM & RUGER: Jones Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 5, 2024 SUEZ WTS: Bulnes Must File Bid for Class Certification by August 4 SVB FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 12 TRIP MATE: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Rivard Class Complaint TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Court Allows Bid to Seal & Impound Documents UNITED NATURAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 19 UNITED STATES: Bid to Stay Initial Discovery Deadlines Nixed UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Campaign to Censor Online Speech UNIVERSAL CITY: Woulfe, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes VALERY JOSEPH: Velazquez Sues Over General Workers' Unpaid Wages WALMART INC: Kochar False Ad Suit Transferred to E.D. Ark. WAN FU YUAN: Class Cert. Opening Brief Set for April 14 WASHINGTON COUNTY, AL: Wins Bid to Extend Time to Response WFM PRIVATE: Stipulation & Revised Case Scheduling Order Entered WILLIAMS-SONOMA: April 11 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Sought WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Must Produce Class Cert Experts by April 27 WOOD GROUP: Iannotti Seeks Time Extension to File Class Cert Bid WYNN RESORTS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ferris Securities Suit YORK COUNTY, PA: Judge Rejects Class Status in Prisoners' Suit [^] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Speakers Named ********* ADAPTIVE RESEARCH: General Pretrial Management Entered in Luxwear ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUXWEAR LTD., et al., v. ADAPTIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a ADAPTIV BIOMED, Case No. 1:22-cv-05458-AT-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23), must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned. -- All discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. -- The Court notes that the Defendant has a deadline of March 28, 2023 to renew its request for the discovery relief outlined in its letter dated March 13, 2023, if necessary. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LODt84 at no extra charge.[CC] ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: IDLC, et al., Win Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Immigrant Defenders Law Center (IDLC), et al. v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-09893-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order: (1) granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss; and (2) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Because the Plaintiffs have established the requirements of both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b), the Certification Motion is granted. The Court certifies the Inactive MPP 1.0 Class and the Terminated Case Subclass, In Abstentia Subclass, and Final Order Subclass. The Court appoints all remaining Individual the Plaintiffs as representatives of the Inactive MPP 1.0 Class. It appoints the Plaintiffs Lidia Doe and Antonella Doe as representatives of the Terminated Case Subclass; Chepo Doe, Yesenia Doe, and Sofia Doe as representatives of the In Abstentia Subclass; and Gabriela Doe, Ariana Doe, Francisco Doe, Reina Doe, Carlos Doe, and Dania Doe as representatives of the Final Order Subclass. On October 28, 2020, the Plaintiffs Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Jewish Family Service of San Diego , and eight individuals filed a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against the Defendants. The Defendants included the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and others. As alleged in the Complaint, Organizational the Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations which exist to serve immigrant and refugee communities. Individual the Plaintiffs are asylum seekers subject to the Migrant Protection Protocols ("MPP") and required to wait in Mexico while their asylum applications are adjudicated. The Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Defendants from continuing to implement policies affecting asylum seekers waiting at the U.S.-Mexico border. On November 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for provisional class certification and an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. On November 24, 2020, the Defendants opposed both motions. On November 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs replied. On December 14, 2020, the Court held a telephonic hearing on both of the Plaintiffs' motions. After the telephonic hearing, the Defendants filed a Motion to Transfer Venue, which the Court denied on January 22, 2021. The Plaintiffs move to certify the following class of individuals (the "Inactive MPP 1.0 Class"): "All individuals subjected to MPP 1.0 prior to June 1, 2021, who remain outside the United States and whose cases are not currently active due to termination of proceedings or a final removal order." Within the Inactive MPP 1.0 Class, the Plaintiffs move to certify three subclasses: 1. The "Terminated Case Subclass": "All individuals subjected to MPP 1.0 prior to June 1, 2021, who remain outside the United States and whose MPP proceedings were terminated and remain inactive." 2. The "In Absentia Subclass": "All individuals subjected to MPP 1.0 prior to June 1, 2021, who remain outside the United States, received an in absentia order of removal in MPP proceedings, and whose cases have not been reopened and are not currently pending review before a federal circuit court of appeals. 3. The "Final Order Subclass": "All individuals subjected to MPP 1.0 prior to June 1, 2021, who remain outside the United States, received a final order of removal for reasons other than failure to appear for an immigration court hearing, and whose cases have not been reopened and are not currently pending review before a federal circuit court of appeals." A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z1Tj7z at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Hamilton Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff DANIEL HAMILTON filed an appeal from a district court order dated March 3, 2023, and judgment dated March 6, 2023, entered in his lawsuit entitled DAN HAMILTON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-cv-00434-PAB-STV, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Denver. The case was removed from the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for District of Colorado on Feb. 17, 2022. The Plaintiff's complaint focuses on Amazon's treatment of Holiday Incentive Pay for purposes of calculating the rate of overtime pay. Colorado law requires employers to pay overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. The "regular rate" of pay is the "hourly rate actually paid to employees," which is determined by dividing the total compensation an employee was paid in a given week by the number of hours that the employee worked. The resulting regular rate of pay is multiplied by 1.5 to determine the amount of additional overtime pay that an employee should receive for every overtime hour worked. On March 3, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's individual and class action complaint. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado entered an Order on March 3, 2023, granting Amazon's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Individual and Class Action Complaint. Judge Brimmer found that Mr. Hamilton has not identified any Colorado statute, regulation, or controlling caselaw that requires Amazon to include HIP in its calculation of his regular rate of pay, nor is it his position that such a statute, regulation, or controlling legal precedent exists. HIP is not "holiday pay" within the meaning of the Orders because HIP is compensation for hours worked on company holidays. Judge Brimmer further denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify class action and motion for order certifying determinative question of Colorado Law to the Colorado Supreme Court. He dismissed the Plaintiff's first claim with prejudice. The case was closed. The appellate case is captioned as Hamilton v. Amazon.com Services, Case No. 23-1082, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on March 17, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and entry of appearance were due on March 31, 2023 for Daniel Hamilton; and -- Notice of appearance and disclosure statement was due on March 31, 2023 for Amazon.com Services LLC.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DANIEL HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Victoria E. Guzman, Esq. David Hunter Miller, Esq. WILHITE, ROSE, MCCLURE & SAWAYA 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 839-1650 Defendant-Appellee AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is represented by: Jennifer Harpole, Esq. Sarah Katelyn Watt, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 629-6200 AMC NETWORKS: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Vela Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD VELA, NICHOLAS NUNEZ, and ANDY GERMUGA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMC Networks, Inc. d/b/a/ AMC +, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02524 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs due to the Defendant's alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Minnesota Statute, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly discloses to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., Plaintiffs' "personally identifiable information" about specific videos they and others similarly situated requested or obtained from Defendant's website, and retains records containing PII concerning Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. Specifically, AMC+ discloses the specific videos its consumers have requested or obtained to Facebook. AMC+ discloses this information to Facebook using the Facebook Pixel, a snippet of programming code AMC+ chose to install on its website that sends information about its users to Facebook, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are consumers of AMC+'s video streaming platform and have requested and obtained videos using their AMC+ subscription. AMC+ is a media production and distribution company that sells its content on multiple platforms.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel R. Jackson, Esq. Hank Bates, Esq. Courtney Ross, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: sjackson@cbplaw.com hbates@cbplaw.com cross@cbplaw.com - and - Michael W. Sobol, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com - and - Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: dcuthbertson@lchb.com ARBOR REALTY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 26 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASA DE MARYLAND, INC., et al. v. ARBOR REALTY TRUST, INC., et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-01778-DKC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Sullivan entered an order modifying the scheduling order as follows: Event Old Date New Date Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Mar. 27, 2023 May 26, 2023 Certification Due Moving for additional parties Mar. 27, 2023 May 26, 2023 and amendment of pleadings Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(2) Apr. 12, 2023 June 9, 2023 Disclosures Defendants' Rule 26(a)(2) May 10, 2023 July 7, 2023 Disclosures Plaintiffs' rebuttal Rule May 24, 2023 July 21, 2023 26(a)(2) disclosures Arbor Realty is a national direct lender that provides debt capital for the multifamily loan and commercial real estate industries. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JKA1IQ at no extra charge.[CC] ASSETCARE LLC: Weiss Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH WEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASSETCARE, LLC, CF MEDICAL, LLC, Case No. 509173/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Mar. 27, 2023) alleges that the Defendants' debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On or before January 16, 2023, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred an obligation(s) to nonparty original creditor Orange Emergency Service PC ("Orange"). This alleged debt was incurred as a financial obligation that was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, specifically medical services. Upon information and belief, Defendant CF contracted with the Defendant AC to collect the allegedly defaulted debt, says the suit. On January 16, 2023, the Defendants sent the Plaintiff an initial collection letter. The Plaintiff disputes the "Total amount of the debt now: $1,373.00" as set forth in the Letter because proof of Medicaid insurance was provided at all relevant times from when the debt was incurred to the present. Stating, or implying, the "Total amount of the debt now: $1,373.00" is false and/or deceptive. The Plaintiff was therefore unable to evaluate how much is truly being alleged as the correct balance, is being misled as to the total owed, and cannot properly evaluate the demand for payment or how to address it, asserts the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot pay the alleged debt, trusting the Defendants, when it appears that the amounts stated in the Defendants' Letter are incorrect. The Defendants' deceptive, misleading, and unfair representations with respect to their collection efforts were material misrepresentations that affected and frustrated the Plaintiff's ability to intelligently respond to the Defendants' collection efforts because the Plaintiff could not adequately respond to the Defendants' demand for payment of this debt, the suit further alleges. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings. AC is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due itself or another.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert T. Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com ASSURANCE IQ: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 17, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS LEE BLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASSURANCE IQ LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00016-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered a Rule 16(b) and Rule 23(d)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline to complete discovery on class Dec. 18, 2023 certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion Jan. 17, 2024 for class certification: Assurance IQ is a wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZanDY7 at no extra charge.[CC] AUS INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Fernandez Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- WINSTON FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AUS, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01713-RMB-SAK (D.N.J., Mar. 27, 2023) alleges that Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information, including without limitation, the full names and Social Security numbers. Through an investigation, AUS determined that the unauthorized individual or individuals gained access to its systems on November 28, 2023. This exposed an estimated 3,400 individuals' PII to criminals, the suit claims. On December 23, 2022, an investigation commissioned by AUS determined that there was unauthorized activity on AUS's network that resulted in unauthorized third-party access to and acquisition of confidential information of AUS customers, but that the full scope and specifics of the information impacted could not be determined. The Data Breach was determined to be a ransomware attack, says the suit. Beginning on or about January 4, 2023, AUS notified many of its customers, current and former employees, and state Attorneys General about the widespread data breach. As a direct and proximate result of AUS's negligence, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will suffer injury, including: (i) actual identity theft; (ii) the loss of the opportunity of how their PII is used; (iii) the compromise, publication, and/or theft of their PII; (iv) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, taxfraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII; and (v) lost opportunity costs associated with effort expended and the loss of productivity addressing and attempting to mitigate the actual and future consequences of the Data Breach. Plaintiff Winston Fernandez is a resident and citizen of Pennsylvania residing in Lansford, Pennsylvania in Carbon County. Mr. Fernandez received AUS's Notice of Data Breach, dated January 4, 2023, shortly after that date. AUS is a company primarily providing consulting and market research services to its clients, but also providing other business management related products and services through its subsidiaries – SSRS, MSG, RoyaltySource, and AUS Consultants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victoria Maniatis, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com dlietz@milberg.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com AVIVA CANADA: Loses Bid to Quash Suit for COVID-Related BI Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Gambrill at canadianunderwriter.ca reports that Ontario's Superior Court has certified a class action lawsuit by a window and door manufacturer against Aviva Canada related to the insurer's broad denial of pandemic-related business interruption claims. In doing so, the court rejected Aviva's motion to have the matter summarily dismissed. To be clear, the court did not reject Aviva's grounds for denying coverage and questioning the composition of the class; it only found a trial would be necessary to determine the merits of Aviva's arguments against the class action lawsuit. Nordik Windows Inc. is a custom window and door manufacturer, supplier, and installer operating in Ontario and Quebec. It called on the court to add some unrelated businesses that had purchased business interruption insurance from Aviva as representative plaintiffs in its class action lawsuit. "Each of the [additional class members] had an experience with pandemic-related business losses that is largely similar to Nordik's experience," the Ontario Superior Court observed in its decision, released. "One of them is Nordik's sister company, Cash and Carry Inc. [C&C], which operates out of the same premises as Nordik and acts as Nordik's retail arm. It is a named insured under Nordik's insurance policy with Aviva and, accordingly, has the identical restricted access, negative publicity, and physical damage coverage as Nordik." C&C serves the Ottawa area; the entire city lies within a 25-kilometre radius of C&C's business facility. This distance triggers the negative publicity coverage in Aviva's policy when a case of COVID-19 is reported. In court documents, C&C says it began receiving numerous customer cancellations of orders beginning in March 2020, when the first COVID-19 cases began to be reported. On Mar. 23, 2020, the Ontario government ordered all non-essential retail businesses to close. It amended the order on Apr. 4, 2020, to include a mandatory shutdown of all new residential construction. The province's order effectively restricted C&C's installers from accessing their facility to obtain the newly manufactured windows and their installation supplies and, consequently, from performing installations. C&C claimed it lost more than $1.32 million in business income as a combined result of the COVID-19 closure orders and the reported outbreaks of COVID-19 in the Ottawa area causing customer cancellations. In May 2020, Nordik and C&C both gave notice to Aviva of a claim for loss of business income as a result of COVID-19. Aviva denied coverage on Jun. 1, 2020. Nordik and C&C both submitted a proof of loss to Aviva in March 2021. Aviva has three types of standard clauses relating to business interruption coverage, Ontario's Superior Court found. They include physical damage coverage; negative publicity coverage; and restricted access coverage. In March 2020, there were "somewhere in the neighbourhood of 44,000 businesses with Aviva insurance policies that contained these three clauses," the court found. The chief technical underwriter for Aviva provided an affidavit explaining Aviva's position on each of the three forms of coverage, the court wrote: -- "the [restricted access] clause does not provide coverage for business interruption losses caused by province-wide shutdown orders" -- "the [negative publicity] clause does not provide coverage for business income losses arising from global pandemics" and -- "the actual or suspected presence of COVID-19 at an insured premises, as well as restrictions placed on access to an insured premises as a result of any applicable government shutdown orders, does not amount to 'physical loss of or damage to' those premises. . . " Aviva objected to the certification of the class on several grounds. For example, it argued the representative plaintiff in the class, Nordik Windows Inc., was declared to be an 'essential service' by government and could therefore keep their business operations open throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Other members in the class, however, like C&C, were deemed to be non-essential and had to shut down. "It is Aviva's view that Nordik was always designated as an essential business during the COVID-19 pandemic, and so was never subject to the governmental restrictions on its operations that triggered its claim for coverage," the Superior Court ruled. "This challenge, of course, goes far deeper than Aviva's other attempts to disqualify [Nordik as the representative plaintiff]. If Aviva is correct in its summary judgment motion, Nordik's own claim will be at an end and it will no longer be in a position to instruct counsel on behalf of the class as it will no longer be a class member." Nordik's argument on this point turns on how the company interpreted the government's lockdown legislation. Which, the court ruled, is a matter to be raised at trial. Aviva also objected to class members being added to the lawsuit who had not in fact filed a claim for a business interruption loss. The insurer argued these members did not have a case against the insurer because coverage had not actually been denied. "Aviva objects to including in the proposed class policyholders who have not yet given individual notice of their claims," as the court characterized the insurer's argument. "Aviva's counsel submits that giving individual notice, and having the claim denied, is a necessary precondition for commencing or participating in a lawsuit seeking damages for denial of coverage." On the second point, Nordik argued that since the rejection of business interruption claims was "across-the-board," it wouldn't have mattered if they had submitted a claim, since it would have been denied anyway. Or, as the Superior Court framed the argument: "As the British Columbia Supreme Court observed in West Coast Securities Ltd v. Continental Insurance Co. (1975). . . 'where it is clear that the insurer will not pay in any event, it is absurd to require the insured to do acts which will prove useless.'" Ultimately, the court found a trial would be necessary to figure out whether claims had to be submitted, and denied, in order for a business to be a member of the class. "Cogent and interesting as some of these questions might be, all of these challenges to Nordik's claim are for another day," the court ultimately determined. "In responding to [Aviva's] summary judgment motion under Rule 20.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Nordik does not have to definitively prove its case; rather, it has to show that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. "Nordik has certainly passed that test here. The issue of Nordik's losses is contentious, but on the record before me neither side has a definitive answer."[GN] BLENDTEC INC: All Fact Discovery Must be Completed by July 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Isaac, et al., v. Blendtec, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-11254 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion for extension of time. -- As the parties will mediate the case on April 14, 2023, the court will permit 90 days to complete discovery if no settlement in principal is reached. -- All fact discovery will be completed by July 14, 2023. If there is disagreement as to the delineation of the Plaintiff class(es), class certification motions will be filed by Aug. 4, 2023, with any opposition by Aug. 25, 2023. -- The Plaintiffs will produce expert disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2) by Sept. 15, 2023. -- The Defendant will produce its counter expert disclosures by Oct. 13, 2023. -- Eexpert discovery, if any, must finish by Nov. 6, 2023. -- Dispositive motions, if appropriate, will be filed by Nov. 30, 2023, with any opposition by Dec. 21, 2023. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.[CC] BURGER KING: Administrative Bid to Seal Exhibits OK'd ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZMAN HUSSAIN, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-02258-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the Defendant's administrative motion to seal. The Defendant seeks to seal two exhibits related to its motion to compel arbitration or transfer the case. Because the motion to compel arbitration is more than tangentially related to the underlying action, the Court applies the "compelling reasons" standard. Because the documents divulge confidential business information unrelated to the public's understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, the Court finds that the Defendant has established compelling reasons to file the documents under seal. First, the Court did not rely on the documents that are the subject of the motion to seal. The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case before the Court ruled on the motion to compel arbitration. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public's understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, and the public's interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal. Burger King is an American-based multinational chain of hamburger fast food restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JzItum at no extra charge.[CC] CALVERT'S EXPRESS: FLSA Settlement in Heitzman Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY HEITZMAN, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CALVERT'S EXPRESS AUTO SERVICE & TIRE, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02001-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order granting the parties' Amended Joint Motion for Approval of Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) Settlement and Dismissal of Lawsuit with Prejudice. -- The Court grants final collective action certification and approves the settlement agreement, with the exception of the service award, which it reduces to $2,000. -- The case is hereby dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff Jeremy Heitzman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brings this putative collective action under the FLSA against the Defendant Calvert's Express Auto Service & Tire, LLC. In a February 17, 2023 Memorandum and Order, the Court denied without prejudice the parties' original motion to approve their settlement agreement because they failed to submit information sufficient for the Court to make the requisite findings for final collective action certification. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lIRgSZ at no extra charge.[CC] CANADA: Unions Urge Government to Settle Discrimination Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Black Class Action Secretariat and several major unions are renewing calls to settle the lawsuit on behalf of tens of thousands of Black federal public service workers in the wake of the government's admission the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) discriminated against its Black and racialized employees. "It is inconceivable that the federal government would spend millions of dollars fighting Black public service workers in court, when the government itself has concluded that the very institution designed to address discrimination, is discriminatory," said Nicholas Marcus Thompson, executive director of the Black Class Action Secretariat. The recent ruling by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBCS) is a scathing admission that the CHRC - the government's own human rights watchdog mandated to fight racism and discrimination - is itself plagued by anti-Black racism and systemic discrimination. The federal government has been trying to dismiss the Black Class Action since it was launched in December 2020, arguing that the workers should pursue other avenues for redress such as filing a human rights complaint with the CHRC. This recent revelation puts the CHRC's credibility into question as the appropriate avenue to achieve justice for Black public sector workers. "Enough is enough. Our members deserve justice, they deserve respect, and they deserve to be made whole," said Chris Aylward, PSAC national president. "It's time for this government to make things right so we can move forward in creating a more equitable and diverse federal public service, free of anti-Black racism." The CHRC's own figures also show the watchdog has been dismissing racism-based claims at a higher rate than any other human rights complaint. In the 2022 federal budget, the government committed $3.7 million over four years to create a mental health program to address racial trauma and discrimination experienced by Black workers in the federal public service. However, the government has been accused of discriminating against Black workers developing the Black Mental Health Action Plan. Earlier this year, Treasury Board terminated the employees it hired to work on the plan after they raised serious concerns about experiencing anti-Black racism. PSAC has also filed grievances on behalf of those workers and has requested transparency from Treasury Board on how the Action Plan is being developed. The Black Class Action Secretariat and Canada's unions are calling for the government to cease its efforts in dismissing the lawsuit, and instead actively work towards redress for the workers who have been harmed and end systemic discrimination within its ranks. "This important legal action shines a light on systemic racism and discrimination within our workplaces, and it is a vital step towards fostering a more equitable and inclusive environment for all employees," said Jennifer Carr, national president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. "It is our collective responsibility to ensure that every individual is treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and we must address the root causes of inequality in order to build a more just and compassionate society. We demand the government end its delay tactics and work with Black Class Action to bring equity and justice to public service workers." "The CLC stands in solidarity with Black workers and against all forms of racial discrimination," said Larry Rousseau, executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress. "We support Black workers pursuing equity, equality, and full, fair participation in the labour market. We strongly urge the federal government to uphold the human rights of its workers and redress the injustices faced by Black federal public service employees." [GN] CIRCLE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Coordinators' Minimum, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ EDWEENA WASHINGTON and DAPHNE MOLEFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIRCLE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01420 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 27, 2023) sues the Defendant for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated for all hours worked and for overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated Patient Coordinators worked for Defendant within the three years preceding the filing of this action and are individuals who a) signed independent contractor agreements with Defendant, b) provided customer support, prescription, billing, and/or patient advocate/communication/care services in Patient Coordinator roles for the Defendant by phone, chat, and/or email from remote work locations; c) worked more than 40 hours in a workweek; and d) were paid the same hourly rate for all hours of work performed in a workweek and were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the suit. According to the complaint, the Defendant unlawfully classified the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Patient Coordinators as independent contractors to avoid its obligations to properly pay for overtime, and to reap the benefits of such illegal classification, such as reducing its tax liability and avoiding required workers compensation coverage. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a collective of persons who were not paid the statutorily required rate of one-and-one-half times their hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 4) per workweek and who are entitled to recover: (i) unpaid and incorrectly paid wages for all hours worked in a workweek, (ii) unpaid overtime, (iii) liquidated damages, (iv) interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the FLSA and such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. Ms. Washington and Ms. Molefe applied for a position the with Defendant by responding to an internet advertisement. After a virtual video-based interview, they were hired and advised that they were required to sign an independent contractor agreement. Ms. Washington has been working for the Defendant since April 2022. Ms. Molefe has been working for Defendant since May 2022. Circle Medical provides telemedicine and in-person medical services in the United States, including the State of California, and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. RIGHETTI • GLUGOSKI, P.C. Presidio of San Francisco 220 Halleck Street, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com - and - Justin M. Scott, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 780-4880 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com - and - Tracey T. Barbaree, Esq. Beth A. Moeller, Esq. MOELLER BARBAREE LLP 1175 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 1850 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 748-9122 E-mail: tbarbaree@moellerbarbaree.com bmoeller@moellerbarbaree.com CITIGROUP INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE CITIGROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 20 Civ. 9132 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: a. grants the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") filed by Citigroup Inc., three Citigroup officers, and 17 Citigroup directors; and b. dismisses the CAC without prejudice. The CAC alleges securities fraud claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5 against Citigroup, the Officer Defendants, and the Director Defendants, as well as control-person claims under section 20(a) against the Officer Defendants. Citigroup is a Delaware corporation that provides financial services and products to consumers, corporations, governments, and institutions around the world, with over $2.2 trillion in total assets and approximately 200 million customer accounts. Michael Corbat was CEO and Director of Citigroup from 2012 through Feb. 26, 2021. He also served as a Director of Citibank from June 2020 through Feb. 26, 2021. John Gerspach was CFO of Citigroup from July 2009 through Feb. 22, 2019. The Plaintiffs allege that the Officer Defendants were provided advance or contemporaneous copies of Citigroup's reports to the SEC, press releases, and presentations they alleged to be false and misleading, yet failed to prevent their issuance or to cause them to be corrected. The Plaintiffs name seventeen current and former directors of Citigroup, in addition to Gerspach. Ellen Costello has served since 2016 as a Director of Citigroup and Citibank and as a member of Citigroup's Audit Committee. Grace Dailey has served since 2019 as a Director of Citigroup and a member of Citigroup's Audit and Risk Management Committees. Barbara Desoer, a current Director and former CEO of Citibank, has served since 2019 as a Director of Citigroup and a member of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee. John Dugan has since 2017 served as a Director of Citigroup and since 2019 as Chairman of the Citigroup Board. Duncan Hennes has since 2013 served as a Director of both Citigroup and Citibank. Peter Henry has served since 2015 as a Director of Citigroup and as a member of Citigroup's Audit Committee. Franz Humer served as a Director of Citigroup from 2012 to April 2019, a member of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee from 2015 through 2018, and a Director of Citibank from 2012 to 2013. S. Leslie Ireland has served since 2017 as a Director of Citigroup, since 2020 as a member of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee, and since 2017 as a Director of Citibank. Lew Jacobs has served since 2018 as a Director of Citigroup and member of Citigroup's Audit Committee and since 2020 as a member of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee. Renee James has served since 2016 as a Director of Citigroup and member of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee. Eugene McQuade, a former director, Vice Chairman, and CEO of Citibank, served from 2015 to April 2020 as a Director of Citigroup, from 2015 through 2019 as a member of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee, and in 2019 as a member of Citigroup's Audit Committee. Michael O'Neill served from 2009 to January 2019 as a Director of Citigroup, from 2012 to January 2019 as the Chairman of the Citigroup Board, from 2016 to 2018 as a member of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee, and in 2015 as a member of Citigroup's Audit Committee. Anthony Santomero served from 2009 to April 2019 as a Director of Citigroup and from 2015 through 2018 as Chair of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee and a member of Citigroup's Audit Committee. James Turley has served since 2013 as a Director of Citigroup and since 2015 as Chair of Citigroup's Audit Committee and member of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee. Deborah Wright has served since 2017 as a Director of Citigroup and as a member of Citigroup's Audit Committee. Alexander Wynaendts has served since 2019 as a Director of Citigroup and as a member of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee. Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon has served since 2010 as a Director of Citigroup and since 2015 as a member of Citigroup's Risk Management Committee. The Class Period runs from Jan. 15, 2016 to Oct. 12, 2020. The CAC catalogues statements made in various contexts over approximately four years and asserts that these statements constitute a broad narrative of appropriate investment in and compliance with risk management requirements. They assert that these statements were misleading because Citigroup was aware that its regulators held a contrary view and that, instead of investing adequately in risk management, Citigroup made the deliberate choice to cut costs in hopes of improving its efficiency ratio (expenses/revenue) and thereby boosting its stock price. Although the Plaintiffs identify approximately 60 statements as actionable, the Plaintiffs' contentions are, at bottom, that two October 2020 consent orders between Citibank and its primary regulators -- the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") and the Federal Reserve ("Fed") -- render dozens of prior statements about Citigroup's risk management false or misleading. The original putative class action complaint was filed on Oct. 30, 2020, by The City of Sunrise Firefighters' Pension Fund against Citigroup and the Officer Defendants. Two separate putative class actions subsequently were filed by two other institutional investors -- City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. Citigroup, et al., No. 20-cv-9573; and Lim v. Citigroup, et al., No. 20-cv-10360. After certain parties moved to consolidate and to be appointed lead plaintiff, the plaintiff in City of Sterling Heights voluntarily dismissed its claims without prejudice, maintaining its right to participate in the case as an absent class member. On Feb. 4, 2021, the Court consolidated the remaining actions -- City of Sunrise and Lim -- styled as In re Citigroup Securities Litigation, and the Court appointed Public Sector Pension Investment Board as the Lead Plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 20, 2021. There are three classes of Defendants in the CAC: (i) the corporate Defendant Citigroup; (ii) the Officer Defendants Michael L. Corbat, John C. Gerspach, and Michael A. L. Mason; and (iii) the Director Defendants. Before the Court is the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the CAC filed by Citigroup, the Officer Defendants, and the Director Defendants. Lead Plaintiff Public Sector Pension ("PSP" or "Lead Plaintiff"), and Named Plaintiff Anchorage Police & Fire Retirement System -- on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Citigroup's securities -- oppose the motion. The Complaint brings two securities fraud claims: Count I alleges a violation of Rule 10b-5 against Citigroup and the Individual Defendants, and Count II alleges a Section 20(a) violation against the Officer Defendants as control persons. The Defendants contend that the CAC should be dismissed because it: (i) fails to identify any actionable misstatements or omissions and (ii) does not plead a strong inference of scienter. As to their first argument, the Defendants contend that all of the alleged misstatements and omissions fall into one of two buckets that make them non-actionable: (i) statements that are immaterial as a matter of law and (ii) statements that were not false when spoken and were not rendered false by the 2020 Consent Orders. Judge Preska agrees. Among other things, she concludes that Alleged Misstatements 1-7, 10-14, 19-22, 25-27, 29, 31-32, and 34 are not actionable because the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that the statements were false at the time they were made or identified any specific information available to the Defendants at the time the statements were made that should have been disclosed contemporaneously but was not. She also finds that the Alleged Misstatements 9, 15-18, 23-24, 28, 30, and 33 are not actionable because the October 2020 Orders do not cite to any ongoing violations related to the particular issues identified in the earlier settlements that render these statements false or misleading. In addition, Judge Preska says alleged Misstatement 8 is not misleading or untrue, and it is not actionable. Lastly, the Plaintiff offers nothing beyond conjecture to suggest that the Individual Defendants knew -- at the time they signed their certifications -- of any misrepresentations in Citigroup's financial statements or deficiencies in the Company's internal controls. As to the Defendants' second argument, they move to dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims because the Plaintiffs failed to plead scienter. Recall that the Plaintiffs may show scienter in one of two ways: (i) evidence that Individual Defendants had "a motive and opportunity to commit the fraud" or (ii) "strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness." Blanford, 794 F.3d at 306 (quotation marks omitted). Judge Preska holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations fall short under either theory, especially since, when evaluating scienter, the Court must consider plausible opposing inferences. The Plaintiffs' allegations regarding scienter do not support a "powerful or cogent" inference that Individual Defendants harbored thoughts of fraud. As a result, there is also no intent that can be imputed to the Company. Consequently, the Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims must also be dismissed based on lack of scienter. The Plaintiffs assert a control person claim against the Individual Defendants under Exchange Act Section 20(a). Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish a primary violation of the securities laws, their section 20 claim necessarily collapses and is dismissed. Lastly, in a single sentence at the end of their opposition brief, the Plaintiffs request leave to amend if the Court dismisses the Complaint. The Plaintiffs have not proposed any specific amendments, and Judge Preska has serious doubts that they can add any allegations that would shore up their CAC. As a result, she does not grant the Plaintiffs' request, but they may move for leave to amend to explain further how any amendment would cure the defects identified. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Preska grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs may move for leave to amend within 30 days of the Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the open motion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5bv422dj from Leagle.com. CLOSET WORLD: Faces Nabiyev Class Suit Over False Limited-Time Sale ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarkhan Nabiyev, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Closet World, Inc. and Home Organizers Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02218-DSF-AS (C.D. Cal., Mar. 24, 2023) alleges that the Defendants prominently advertise purported limited-time sales, through paper advertisements mailed to consumers, and online, in violation of the California's False Advertising Law and the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants always offer sitewide discounts, as well as discounts on certain items, so they never sell any of their products at the purported regular price. The sales are not limited in time, but instead immediately reset and continue to be available, the suit contends. Mr. Nabiyev bought custom Products from the Defendants. Like the Defendants' other customers, when Mr. Nabiyev bought the Products, the Defendants advertised that a sale was going on, and that the Products were heavily discounted. Mr. Nabiyev believed that the Products that he purchased usually retailed for the quoted and listed regular prices, and that the sale would end soon. If he had known that the Products he purchased were not on sale, he would not have bought them, the Plaintiff claims. But none of that was true. The Defendants' regular prices were not the prevailing regular prices. The sale Defendants advertised was not really limited in time. Had the Defendants been truthful, the Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased the Products or would have paid less for them, the Plaintiff adds. Mr. Nabiyev is domiciled in Los Angeles, California. Closet World makes, sells, and markets home organizing products including, custom closets, garages, storage solutions, and home offices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Goodman, et al., Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GOODMAN, LISA COUNTRYMAN, SHARON CLARKE, CHERYL GALLOPS, SHERRI STUCKEY, and LAUREN SPIVEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00015-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. Columbus Regional Health is a nationally recognized health system serving a 10-county region in southeastern Indiana. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nke9g0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Williamson, Esq. WILLIAMSON AND YORK, LLC 2727 Paces Ferry Road, SE Building One, Suite 750 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (678) 358-9317 E-mail: jwilliamson@williamsonyork.com jhw@williamsonyork.com - and - James H. White, IV, Esq. JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC 2100 Morris Avenue Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: (205) 383-1812 E-mail: james@whitefirmllc.com CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Fails to Pay Nurses' OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMISHA WERITO, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00261-GJF-JMR (Court, Mar. 27, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Werito regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week like the Putative Class Members but CoreCivic allegedly did not pay for all the hours they worked. Instead, CoreCivic automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from these employees' work time for so-called meal breaks. CoreCivic requires Werito and the Putative Class Members to remain on-duty throughout their shifts and continuously subjects them to interruptions during their unpaid "meal breaks," says the suit. CoreCivic's auto-deduction policy violates theFLSA and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA) by depriving Werito and the Putative Class Members of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked. Further, CoreCivic uniformly requires Werito and the New Mexico Class Members to complete a mandatory security screening before clocking in for their shifts. CoreCivic's mandatory pre-shift security screening practice violates the NMMWA by depriving Werito and the New Mexico Class Members of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked, the suit asserts. Werito worked for CoreCivic as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) at the Cibola County Correction Center in Milan, New Mexico from February 2020 until February 2021. CoreCivic is a provider of high-quality corrections and detention management with operations across the United States, including in New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CREDIT SUISSE: Ct. Certifies Securities Act Class in Set Capital ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SET CAPITAL LLC, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a JANUS HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Case No. 1:18-cv-02268-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order:granting in part and denying in part the parties' motions as follows 1. The Defendants' motion to exclude Mitts' testimony is denied. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Securities Act Class is granted. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion to appoint class counsel of the Securities Act Class is granted. 4. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Misrepresentation Class is denied, without prejudice to refiling by alternative class representatives and counsel by May 15, 2023. 5. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Manipulation Class is denied, without prejudice to refiling by alternative class representatives and counsel by May 15, 2023. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met the typicality and adequacy requirements by a preponderance of evidence for the Exchange Act Classes because Plaintiffs, who are each a member of both Exchange Act Classes, do not have the same "incentive to prove all the elements of the cause of action" that members of only one of the classes would have. Further, Plaintiffs and their counsel cannot adequately represent both the Misrepresentation and Manipulation Classes because the conflict between the classes is fundamental. The case arises out of the collapse of XIV Notes, which were a complex investment vehicle that provided a mechanism by which investors could profit from low volatility in the stock market. In purchasing an exchange traded note ("ETN"), like XIV Notes, investors agree to pay money to the institution sponsoring the ETN in return for a payment when the note matures, the amount of which is determined by the value of a market index. In this case, the value of XIV Notes was derived from the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index (the "VIX Futures Index"), an index that aggregates the price of VIX futures contracts, which in turn track a measure of market volatility. After several plaintiffs sued Defendants, the Honorable Sarah Netburn consolidated the actions and appointed Plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs. On August 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint against Defendants. On November 2, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Upon a Report and Recommendation by Judge Netburn, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. On April 27, 2021, the Second Circuit affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part, the Court's order of dismissal. On July 1, 2022, on remand, Plaintiffs moved to certify three classes: "all persons and entities that purchased or acquired [XIV Notes] between January 29, 2018 and February 5, 2018, inclusive (the "Misrepresentation Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "10b-5(b) Class" [or the "Misrepresentation Class"];" all persons and entities that sold or redeemed [XIV Notes] on or after February 5, 2018 (the "Manipulation Class Period") and who were damaged thereby (the "10b-5(a) and (c) Class" [or the "Manipulation Class"] and, together with the 10b-5(b) Class, the "Exchange Act Classes");" and "all persons and entities that purchased or acquired [XIV Notes] pursuant to or traceable to [the] Offering Documents, and were damaged thereby (the "Securities Act Class"). Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G1IrdU at no extra charge.[CC] CVS HEALTH: Wins Administrative Bid to Seal Confidential Documents ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN HYAMS, et al., v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06278-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the defendants' administrative motion to seal. Documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The Court finds that the Defendants have established compelling reasons to grant the motion to file under seal. The Court agrees that public disclosure of these confidential business materials could result in improper use by business competitors. These documents include compensation information, business analysis, market research, and strategic planning. Some of the documents contain detailed descriptions of CVS's internal software, as well as research and data on customers and employees. CVS Health is an American healthcare company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain; CVS Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager; and Aetna, a health insurance provider. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JN51YS at no extra charge.[CC] DETROIT, MI: Howard Suit Seeks to Certify Homeowners Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH HOWARD, et. al., v. THE CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10382-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Detroit Homeowners Class and its constituent subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3), or in the alternative, under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or (b)(2). Because standing exists, and because the Court can award the final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief the Plaintiffs seek on a class-wide basis, the class satisfies the requirements for injunctive or declaratory relief under any of the sub-categories of Rule 23(b), the Plaintiffs contend. The Court should certify this case as a class action because the Defendants' liability flows from a single course of conduct that affected all Detroit homeowners in fundamentally the same way. The Detroit the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' due process rights -- and those of every Detroit homeowner -- by sending late and misleading notices of property tax assessment in 2017. Each putative class member's alleged injury flows from the same basic conduct, and each proposed subclass alleges the same type of harm, the Plaintiff adds. On February 14, 2017, the Detroit the Defendants mailed 263,516 property tax assessment notices to Detroit property owners, including to virtually all residential homeowners. Although Detroit the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' -- and every Detroit homeowners' -- due process rights, the harm stemming from the inability to appeal property tax assessments was especially great for those Detroiters whose homes were over-assessed in 2017. The Proposed Class and Subclasses: -- The Plaintiffs William and Billie Hickey represent the Detroit Homeowners Class whose due process rights were violated by Detroit's late and misleading property tax notices in 2017. -- The Plaintiff Jeffery Stevenson represents the Detroit Homeowners Class, as well those the Plaintiffs whose homes were over-assessed (the "Overpaying Subclass"), fell delinquent (the "Delinquent Subclass"), or were subject to foreclosure (the "Foreclosure Subclass") after having been substantively denied the opportunity to appeal their 2017 assessments. -- The Plaintiff Jeffery Stevenson's claims are typical of those of the following three subclasses: 1) Overpaying Subclass Homeowners whose properties Detroit unlawfully over- assessed in 2017, resulting in overpayment of property taxes. Mr. Stevenson alleges his home was over-assessed in 2017. 2) Delinquent Subclass Homeowners who were over-assessed and were sent deficient and untimely notice by the Detroit the Defendants in 2017. Mr. Stevenson was considered delinquent on his property taxes for 2017, resulting in accumulation of delinquency fines and fees. 3) Foreclosure Subclass Homeowners whose delinquent status made them eligible for foreclosure. Mr. Stevenson fell behind on 2017 property tax payments and his home was subsequently subject to foreclosure by Wayne County. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/409Fdgd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rami N. Fakhouri, Esq. Betsy Farrington, Esq. Samuel E. Schoenburg, Esq. Caleb A. Kennedy, Esq. GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI BRENNAN & BAUM LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 681-6000 E-mail: rfakhouri@goldmanismail.com bfarrington@goldmanismail.com sschoenburg@goldmanismail.com ckennedy@goldmanismail.com - and - Cynthia Heenan, Esq. CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 220 Bagley, Ste. 740 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 961-2255 E-mail: Heenan@ConLitPC.com The Defendant is represented by: James D. Noseda, Esq. Charles N. Raimi, Esq. CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT Two Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 237-3057 / 5037 E-mail: nosej@detroitmi.gov raimic@detroitmi.gov - and - Nasseem S. Ramin, Esq. Theodore W. Seitz, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 400 Renaissance Center, 37th Floor Detroit, MI 48243 Telephone: (313) 568-6800 E-mail: nramin@dykema.com tseitz@dykema.com - and - Wesley M. Margeson, Esq. Matthew B. Hodges, Esq. REVENUE AND TAX DIVISION Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: (517) 335-7584 E-mail: margesonw@michigan.gov hodgesm@michigan.gov DIGNITY HEALTH: Hooks Must File Class Certification Bid by May 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVONNE HOOKS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, Case No. 2:22-cv-07699-DSF-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue briefing schedule on plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: 1. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification by May 5, 2023. 2. The Defendant shall file its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by June 5, 2023. 3. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of the motion for class certification by June 30, 2023. 4. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall take place on July 31, 2023. Dignity Health was a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities in three states. Dignity Health was the fifth-largest hospital system in the nation and the largest not-for-profit hospital provider in California. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZpCKwU at no extra charge.[CC] DISH NETWORK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of DISH Network Corporation ("Dish" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DISH) between February 22, 2021 and February 27, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Dish, together with its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV services in the United States. The Company operates in two segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. Dish offers video services under the DISH TV brand; and programming packages that include programming through national broadcast networks, local broadcast networks, and national and regional cable networks, as well as regional and specialty sports channels, premium movie channels, and Latino and international programming packages. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the Company overstated its operational efficiency and maintained a deficient cybersecurity and information technology infrastructure; (ii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was unable to properly secure customer data, leaving it vulnerable to access by malicious third parties; and (iii) the foregoing cybersecurity deficiencies also both rendered Dish's operations susceptible to widespread service outages and hindered the Company's ability to respond to such outages. On February 24, 2023, the Company announced that a "network outage" caused the Company's websites and apps to cease functioning, subjected customers to authentication issues when signing into TV channel apps using their Dish credentials and appeared to render the Company's call center phone numbers unreachable. Then, on February 28, 2023, Dish confirmed that it had "determined that the outage was due to a cyber-security incident and notified appropriate law enforcement authorities," adding that the "threat agent" behind the ransomware attack stole data from Dish's compromised systems, potentially containing personal information. On this news, Dish's stock price fell $0.79 per share, or 6.48%, to close at $11.41 per share on February 28, 2023. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 22, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased or acquired Dish securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit DISH Network Corporation Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2023 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] EASSIT INC: Court Dismisses Lewis Suit without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA LEWIS, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EASSIT, INC. D/B/A EASSIST DENTAL SOLUTIONS, a Wyoming corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00121-HCN (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. entered an order granting motion to dismiss case without prejudice. Specifically, the parties agreed to mediation before either party commences litigation -- not to "mediation in the shadow of a pending lawsuit." The court "cannot countenance such a clear disregard for a party's contractual obligations." The court will accordingly enforce the parties' agreement and dismiss this action without prejudice rather than granting Ms. Lewis's request for a stay. The Plaintiff Christina Lewis, a former remote dental billing specialist for the Defendant eAssist Dental Solutions, brings this action on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Eassist seeks dismissal on the ground that Ms. Lewis failed to engage in mediation before bringing this action as required by the eAssist Independent Contractor Service Agreement, to which Ms. Lewis agreed before beginning her work with eAssist. eAssist is a provider of electronic customer relationship management (eCRM) solutions for e-commerce and Global 2000 companies. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LLGHsE at no extra charge.[CC] EPIQ CORPORATE: Seeks July 6 Extension to File Class Cert. Response ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE No. 1 and JOHN DOE No. 2, behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EPIQ CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00154-OAW (D. Conn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting emergency motion and extend its time to respond to plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class until July 6, 2023, which is 90 days after the parties are due to file their Rule 26(f) report. The extension is necessary to permit Epiq time to conduct class discovery (after discovery has begun) and to prepare an appropriate response to the Class Motion. Plaintiffs do not object to providing Epiq some extension of the filing deadline, but plaintiffs object to the duration of the extension Epiq is requesting in this motion. Epiq has not made any previous request for an extension of this deadline. Because only one week remains until the deadline (due to the passage of time while the parties were conferring about the briefing schedule and other related issues), Epiq respectfully requests that the Court grant the requested extension on an emergency basis. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 8, 2023. Epiq's deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint is April 3, 2023. The Court set April 7, 2023 as the deadline for the parties to file their joint discovery planning and case management report under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subjects to be addressed in that joint report include the scope and sequencing of discovery and the proposed schedule for any motion by plaintiffs for class certification. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nslhXw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John J. Clarke, Jr., Esq. Scott Louis Weber, Esq. Rachael C. Kessler, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 Facsimile: (212) 335-4501 E-mail: john.clarke@us.dlapiper.com scott.weber@us.dlapiper.com rachael.kessler@us.dlapiper.com EXPERIAN INFO: Bid to Compel Arbitration OK'd in Alvarez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL ALVAREZ, SR., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-03343-JS-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James M. Wicks entered an order that Experian's motion to compel arbitration is granted, and the Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied. As a result of granting Experian's motion to compel arbitration, the action is stayed pending arbitration. The Court does not find that Experian waived its right to arbitration. The Plaintiff Manuel Alvarez commenced this consumer class action alleging that Experian Information Solutions, Inc., violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, ("FCRA"), New York Fair Credit Reporting Act ("NYFCRA"), and NY Gen Bus. Law section 380 et seq., by improperly associating customers with terrorists, narcotics traffickers, money launderers, arms dealers, and other like-minded criminals. The Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that Experian sold a consumer credit report to his prospective loan lender that inaccurately identified him as a person listed on the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control List ("OFAC List"). The Plaintiff further alleges that this error delayed approval of his mortgage application, resulting in out-of-pocket costs including additional rent payments, and other damages including harm to reputation and emotional distress. Experian Information offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TIfxFk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. Elizabeth Easley Apostola, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren Kw Brennan, Esq. Edward Skipton, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 The Defendant is represented by: Kerianne Tobitsch, Esq. Kerry Cordill Fowler, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-8321 FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Bid for Rule 23 Class Status Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GWENDOLINE ABOAH and TANIA STEWART, v. FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a BRIGHTSTAR CARE OF FAIRFIELD & SOUTHBURY and PETER R. MOORE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00763-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective; -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. The Plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence demonstrating that other HHAs were required to work seven and a half consecutive hours without taking meal breaks of 30 minutes or longer. The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiffs' citations to deposition testimony and BrightStar's Employee Handbook to support the proposition that BrightStar's "Meal and Rest Break Policy" does not apply to HHAs. Plaintiffs essentially argue that the existence of a meal break policy that applies to some employees other than HHAs demonstrates that Defendants do not provide any such meal breaks to HHAs. But the mere fact that this specific policy does not apply to HHAs does not mean that HHAs are not provided with meal breaks at all. Rather, it merely speaks to how Defendants provided meal and break periods to other employees who are not at issue in this action. Accordingly, this evidence is insufficient to show that any HHAs other than Plaintiffs were, indeed, required to work seven and a half consecutive hours without being permitted to take break periods. The Plaintiffs Gwendoline Aboah and Tania Stewart, who were employed as live-in home health aides by Defendant Fairfield Healthcare, have brought this action under the FLSA, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"). The Plaintiffs allege, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that Defendants required caregivers to work long shifts without bona fide meal and sleep breaks, improperly excluded sleep and meal breaks from shifts caregivers worked when calculating the caregivers' wages, failed to account for food and lodging provided to caregivers when calculating their overtime rates of pay, and failed to accurately record caregivers' hours. Fairfield is a hospital & health care company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kgb8WQ at no extra charge.[CC] FASTTRACK RENT: Faces Taylor Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- DIANA TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. FASTTRACK RENT A CAR, INC., a California Corporation, Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV06519 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 24, 2023) is a representation action brought pursuant to the California Labor Code on behalf of Plaintiff and certain individuals who are employed by, or were formerly employed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California, including in and around the city of Los Angeles. During Plaintiff's employment, she alleges that (a) she did not receive final wages at the time of her termination; (b) she was required to work without meal and rest periods; (c) she was required to work either in excess of eight hours per workday or in excess of 40 hours per workweek; (d) she was forced to receive inaccurately itemized and deficient wage statements; (e) she did not receive her compensation in accordance with Labor Code; (f) she was not paid in a timely manner; and (g) she has not received reimbursement for reasonable and necessary expenses in the course of her job duties. Fasttrack Rent A Car, Inc., is a car rental company doing business in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com FIRSTENERGY CORP: PFP Must Produce Withheld Docs in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE FIRSTENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, This document relates to ALL ACTIONS, Civil Action 2:20-cv-3785 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Joint Motion to Compel brought by the Plaintiffs and Defendant Michael Dowling to compel the production of documents which non-party Partners for Progress, Inc., has withheld or redacted on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Compel brought by the Movants, asking the Court to compel the production of documents which non-party Partners for Progress, Inc. ("PFP") has withheld or redacted based on attorney-client privilege. Additionally, they say that PFP's production thus far has been deficient in two regards: (1) it employed a limited search-term protocol to identify responsive documents; and (2) it failed to search for documents which were created or received by the attorneys at Calfee, Halter & Griswold ("Calfee") representing PFP. Recognizing that the exchange of discovery has already been slowed by conferral and significant litigation, Judge Jolson issues the interim ruling on the completeness of PFP's production so that additional documents may now be identified and exchanged -- or, if necessary, logged for privilege. A subsequent order on the at-issue privilege disputes is forthcoming. On Nov. 18, 2022, the Court ordered PFP to supplement its limited initial production to the Movants' subpoenas by conducting "a diligent search" for all responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control, producing non-privileged documents, and logging documents withheld based on privilege. By Dec. 7, 2022, PFP made its supplemental production, and -- after inquiry from Movants -- explained its search protocol. The Movants then responded with purported deficiencies in the search protocol, including the failure to search Calfee custodians and under-inclusive search terms. They proposed additional search terms but PFP refused to perform the search with these additional terms unless Movants paid the costs associated with the search. And PFP renewed earlier objections that searching Calfee custodians would be unduly burdensome and would result only in privileged material. The Movants say the search-term protocol employed by PFP was insufficient; notably, it failed to include 'FirstEnergy' (along with variations) as a stand-alone search term. They further say their proposed additional terms are reasonable and targeted to return discovery related to key entities and individuals identified in the subpoenas. PFP has represented that these additional terms will result in over 1,000 unique additional documents to review, which will impose significant additional costs on it. PFP says the Court should not enforce the additional search terms because they were only raised after the supplemental production was made and because they are unduly burdensome. Alternatively, it says if the Court does enforce the search terms, it should shift the costs of the corresponding search and review to Movants, under Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Jolson does not find, as PFP suggests, that the Movants are solely responsible for the belated conferral on the search protocol. The Movants were warranted in raising their concerns with the protocol's design. Further, there are legitimate concerns about deficiencies in PFP's protocol, and the proposed search terms reasonably address those concerns. Finally, the Court has been given no reason to believe that the costs are particularly onerous for PFP to bear. Accordingly, PFP is ordered to employ the Movants' proposed additional search terms and bear the costs of the associated production. PFP will produce any non-privileged documents and prepare and produce a privilege log for any withheld documents by April 21, 2023. PFP has, to date, searched the email accounts of three of its current officers and directors, including Michael VanBuren. VanBuren is also an attorney at Calfee, the law firm which represents PFP. The Movants now ask the Court to compel PFP to search the email accounts of other Calfee custodians. PFP says the request to search additional custodians is belated and conflicts with the parties' Joint Protocol for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information. Further, it says that any non-privileged email communications between Calfee and PFP constituents presumably would be encompassed and produced in PFP's searches and reviews of its directors' emails, and any other communications would be exclusively internal communications among Calfee lawyers about the representation, which PFP itself may not be entitled to obtain. Judge Jolson holds that the Movants and PFP have more work to do -- PFP cannot avoid a search of Calfee custodians altogether, but the Movants should collaborate to reasonably limit the search to responsive material. Accordingly, they are ordered to negotiate search terms for relevant Calfee custodians and file a notice on the public docket of the agreed-upon search terms by March 31, 2023. PFP will conduct the search, and if the resulting hit report reveals an unreasonable number of documents, may confer with Movants to further narrow the search terms. PFP will produce any non-privileged documents and prepare and produce a privilege log for any withheld documents by April 21, 2023. Finally, PFP asks that the Court enter an order under Rule of Evidence 502(d), which will allow it to produce disputed Calfee invoices and certain emails to the Movants with fewer redactions without waiving privilege. The Movants say the claw-back provision of the current protective order governing the action is sufficient to protect PFP's interests. Judge Jolson finds it sensible to adopt the Rule 502(d) order if it will promote the exchange of discovery between Movants and PFP. Accordingly, PFP is ordered to provide a copy of the proposed Rule 502(d) order to the Court at jolson_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov. She intends to sign and docket the order shortly thereafter. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/murc5a6r from Leagle.com. FLOWERS FOODS: Bid for Decertification Denied in Ludlow Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL LUDLOW, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; and WILLIAM LANCASTER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia corporation; FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; and FLOWERS FINANCE, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 3:18-cv-01190-JO-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order: 1. denying the Defendants' motion for decertification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim; and 2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to seal without prejudice to refiling. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal exhibits submitted in connection with their opposition to the Defendants' motion for decertification, on the grounds that the exhibits contain material previously designated by the Defendants as "CONFIDENTIAL" under the terms of the Protective Order. The public has a "right to inspect and copy public 15 and documents, including judicial records and documents." In considering a sealing request, the court thus begins with "a strong presumption of access [as] the starting point." A party seeking to seal a judicial record associated with a dispositive motion bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by "articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings" for the sealing. The Plaintiffs do not contend that these exhibits are confidential nor identify any specific harm that would arise from their disclosure. They seek to seal the exhibits only on the grounds that they had been designated "CONFIDENTIAL" pursuant to the Protective Order. This is insufficient to establish the "compelling reasons" required to justify sealing. The Plaintiffs are current and former delivery workers alleging that the Defendants intentionally misclassified them as independent contractors instead of employees. They claim that the Defendants did so in order to avoid paying them overtime and providing them with other employment benefits. the Plaintiffs filed a wage and hour complaint asserting a collective claim under FLSA and class action claims under the California Labor Code. On March 29, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion for decertification of the FLSA collective action. In connection with this briefing, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal exhibits submitted in support of their opposition to the decertification motion. The opt-in the Plaintiffs brought a collective action under the FLSA alleging the Defendants failed to pay distributors overtime based on the alleged misclassification as independent contractors. The Defendants moved to decertify the collective action on the grounds that the opt-in the Plaintiffs are not "similarly situated" under the FLSA's joint employer test or employee-independent contractor tests. Flowers Foods is the national bakery company behind Wonder Bread, Nature's Own, and Dave's Killer Bread. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z0pBQf at no extra charge.[CC] FORSTER GARBUS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Ross FDCPA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, VINCENT T. ROSS, Plaintiff v. FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-0574 (ES) (MAH) (D.N.Y.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Ross initiated the action against the Defendant seeking damages for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. Prior to 2011, the Plaintiff incurred credit card debt in the amount of $1,090.85 with Capital One, which was subsequently purchased by LVNV Funding LLC. On Dec. 29, 2011, the Defendant, a debt collector collecting on the Plaintiff's debt to LVNV, filed suit on behalf of LVNV against the Plaintiff in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic County, Law Division, seeking judgment on the debt. On Feb. 22, 2012, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a default judgment against the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,239.22. Between April 4, 2012, and Jan. 31, 2016, the Defendant sent 13 letters and/or writs of execution to the Plaintiff seeking collection of the judgment, which the Plaintiff received. On Jan. 31, 2018, the Defendant sent him a letter regarding collection of the debt which indicated that the balance owed was $1,113.66 and that a settlement of the above account can be arranged. On Jan. 16, 2019, the Plaintiff initiated the instant action, alleging that the Defendant's Letter violates Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA. Specifically, he alleges that the Statement is false because the creditor has no intention of adding interest or fees to this debt, and it is not their customary practice to do so, and that the Defendant included the Statement to push him into settlement by implying that failure to accept or make payment will result in the debt increasing. On March 17, 2019, the Defendant filed an answer. On Dec. 11, 2019, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Hammer for an initial conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. At the conference, the Defendant presented the letters and writs of execution Defendant sent to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the debt. On Jan. 9, 2020, Judge Hammer issued a second text order directing the Plaintiff to inform the Court whether he intended to proceed with the litigation. On Feb. 24, 2020, Judge Hammer issued a third text order again directing him to inform the Court whether he intended to proceed with the litigation and warning him that failure to comply would result in the Court issuing "an Order to Show Cause as to why the Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute it and failure to comply with Court Orders." On Feb. 26, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court indicating his intent to proceed with the litigation. He explained that he believed the case should proceed because at the initial conference the Defendant could not articulate whether or not interest was currently accruing on the account and regardless of the status of the interest, that is only half of the claim. The Defendant made no representation on whether other charges or fees are accruing. On March 5, 2020, Judge Hammer issued a Pre-Trial Scheduling Order setting May 25, 2020, as the deadline to file any motion to add new parties or amend the pleadings. On Oct. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his Complaint. The Defendant opposed the Plaintiff's motion to amend and the Plaintiff filed a reply in support. On March 1, 2021, Judge Hammer denied the Plaintiff's motion to amend. On March 15, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Hammer's decision denying him leave to amend his Complaint. The Defendant opposed. On May 27, 2021, Judge Hammer denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. On Aug. 19, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment, which is fully briefed. The Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on his FDCPA claim brought in his Complaint premised on the Defendant's violation of Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA. The Defendant opposes, arguing that the Plaintiff has impermissibly sought to proceed on a new theory at summary judgment and that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is a consumer or that the debt is consumer oriented. First, the Plaintiff argues that it is undisputed that the Statement is open to two or more different meanings, at least one of which is inaccurate, and he should therefore be granted summary judgment on his Section 1692e claim. The Defendant opposes, arguing that summary judgment should be denied because the Plaintiff has impermissibly moved for summary judgment on a new theory -- that the Statement is misleading or deceptive as opposed to false -- which the Plaintiff was foreclosed from pursuing when Magistrate Judge Hammer denied him leave to amend his Complaint. In reply, the Plaintiff argues that he has not brought a new theory at summary judgment. Judge Salas agrees with the Defendant. She says the Plaintiff did not adequately argue that his theory that the Statement is misleading is not new until his reply in support of the instant motion for summary judgment. She finds that the Plaintiff cannot present a new argument at this stage of litigation. The Plaintiff cannot proceed on a new theory of liability on a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his FDCPA claim premised on a violation of Section 1692e is denied. In a footnote to the Plaintiff's reply brief to the instant motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff contests Judge Hammer's treatment of his March 15, 2021 motion as one for reconsideration, arguing that the motion should have been treated as an appeal of Judge Hammer's decision denying him leave to amend, and, accordingly, should have been decided by Judge Salas. Judge Salas finds that Judge Hammer's decision denying the Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Hammer's decision clearly denied the Plaintiff leave to proceed by a new theory of the case not already included in his Complaint -- that the Statement is misleading and deceptive because it is open to multiple interpretations, at least one of which is false. The Plaintiff cannot now attempt to circumvent Judge Hammer's decision and proceed with the same theory he was denied leave to add into his Complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is limited to proceeding on his original theory of the case as outlined in his Complaint -- that the Statement violates Section 1692e because it is false. The Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment on his FDCPA claim premised on a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f. He argues that claims for violations of Section 1692e and Section 1692f may proceed in tandem, and that a debt collector's actions can violate both provisions. Judge Salas holds that the Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence to support his allegation that the Defendant's letter was designed to take an unfair advantage of consumers who assumed that there would be additional charges or fees. He has therefore not met his burden of proving that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding this claim. Accordingly, his motion for summary judgment on his FDCPA claim premised on a violation of Section 1692f is denied. Because the Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing a violation of either Section 1692e or Section 1692f, Judge Salas need not decide whether claims under Section 1692e and Section 1692f are mutually exclusive at this time. The parties also dispute whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently proven that the debt at issue was for consumer debt, the third element of his FDCPA claim. Because she denies the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on other grounds, Judge Salas need not address this dispute. Nonetheless, to the extent the Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction because the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the debt is for "consumer debt," and that his motion for summary judgment should be denied on that basis, she finds that the Plaintiff has identified sufficient evidence to support this element of his claim. In sum, because the Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on his Section 1692e claim on a theory that he was precluded from pursuing, and because he has not met his burden on summary judgment with respect to his Section 1692f claim, his motion is denied without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/394fznhu from Leagle.com. GEICO GENERAL: Faces Suit Over Alleged Underpayment of Auto Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew G. Simpson at insurancejournal.com reports that Geico General Insurance Co. must face a class action suit alleging that it has been underpaying benefits to its insureds injured in automobile accidents. U.S. District Court Judge Dora L. Irizarry in federal court in Eastern New York has certified the class alleging breach of contract against Geico General for shortchanging claimants who earn more than $2,000 a month. The lead plaintiff in the case, Mary Lanzillotta, who was injured in a car accident, claims she was entitled to $55,000 in insurance coverage but was provided only $51,445 in benefits by Geico General. The plaintiff contends that the insurer utilizes an improper formula for calculating basic economic loss and first party benefits, resulting in "unlawful deductions and premature policy exhaustion." The complaint maintains that the insurer has used the same improper formula for all policyholders in the class, who are identified in part as insureds numbering "hundreds if not thousands" who have filed similar claims since March 2013. The court said the resulting effect establishes an injury in fact and the class definition captures others who suffered this injury. Lanzillotta submitted a claim for first party benefits. Geico General issued a claim payment of $51,445 and advised her that she had exhausted her basic economic loss and med pay coverages of $55,000. Geico General reached this conclusion by accounting for $2,500 in lost earnings per month, and then subtracting from the total $55,000 in basic economic loss and med pay, 20% of such lost earnings ($500) for the seven months that she received first party wage benefits, for a total deduction of $3,500. The complaint asserts that Geico General, instead, should have accounted for only $2,000 in lost earnings per month and not applied the 20% deduction. This allegedly improper calculation of first party benefits deprived her of $3,500 in basic economic loss benefits to which she she says she was entitled. State law defines basic economic loss as the amount of coverage for medical and wage benefits up to $50,000. It further defines wages as loss of earnings from work which the insured would have earned if she had not been injured, capped at $2,000 per month. First party benefits, on the other hand, are the amount of medical and wage benefits a person is entitled to be reimbursed from the basic economic loss coverage limits for wages by more than the $2,000 cap. Lanzillotta earned more than $2,000 per month. The suit alleges that Geico General has improperly reduced the basic economic loss coverage limits for wages by more than $2,000 and as a result insureds earning more than $2,000 a month have been denied full first party benefits because of the premature exhaustion of basic economic loss. The suit seeks damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees. GEICO General, in part, argued that the class should not be certified because the plaintiff is atypical. But the court rejected that contention, finding that the the claims "not only arise from the same course of events, but rest on similar legal arguments regarding the premature exhaustion of insurance policies through GEICO General's basic economic loss reduction formula." The final court-approved definition limits the class to those GEICO General policyholders who earned gross monthly wages in excess of $2,000 per month at any point during the period in which they were covered, who have submitted first party benefit claims to and received payment from GEICO General that included claims for lost wages, and which, after paying at least one month of first party wage benefits, GEICO General claimed their coverage was fully exhausted on or after March 13, 2013. While certifying this class, the judge denied extending the class to violations of the New York no-fault statute. In addition, she dismissed the claims as to all the other defendants in the GECO family including Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO Casualty Co., GEICO Advantage Insurance Co., GEICO Choice Insurance Co., GEICO Secure Insurance Co., GEICO County Mutual Insurance Co., and GEICO Insurance Agency Inc. for lack of standing.[GN] GEICO: Court Awards $2.5MM in Attoryney's Fees ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Munoz et al v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-03768-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting motion for final approval and granting in part and denying in part motion for attorneys' fees. -- The Court awards $2,583,293.81 in attorneys' fees, $47,446.61 in costs, and $22,500 service award to the named the Plaintiffs. -- The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement this Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. -- While the Court is persuaded that the named the Plaintiffs, particularly the Plaintiff Subbaiah, contributed meaningfully to this case, $15,000 is "quite high" for a service award. -- Thus, the Court finds that awards of $10,000 to the Plaintiff Subbaiah, $7,500 to the Plaintiff Ventrice- Pearson, and $5,000 to the Plaintiff Perez are adequate and appropriate to compensate them for their efforts. The Plaintiffs bring this consolidated class action against the Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company, alleging that the Defendant breached the terms of private passenger auto insurance policies issued to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated insureds by failing to properly include or calculate sales 22 tax (as to leased vehicles) and regulatory fees (as to all vehicles). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's insurance policies require payment of actual cash value ("ACV") upon the total loss of a covered auto and define ACV as the "replacement cost" of the auto, less depreciation. The Settlement Class is defined as: Regulatory Fees Class: "All individual insureds under an Automobile Insurance Policy covering a vehicle with private-passenger auto physical damage coverage with comprehensive or collision coverage, whose claim was adjusted under Section III of the GEICO's Automobile Insurance Policy (i.e. comprehensive or collision coverage) during the Class Period, that was determined by GEICO to be a covered claim and where GEICO determined that the vehicle was a total loss and did not pay to repair the damage to the vehicle and where the insured did not retain the salvage vehicle." Sales Tax Class: "All individual insureds under an Automobile Insurance Policy covering a leased vehicle with private-passenger auto physical damage coverage with comprehensive or collision coverage, who's claim was adjusted under Section III of the GEICO's Automobile Insurance Policy (i.e. comprehensive or collision coverage), during the Class Period, that was determined by GEICO to be a covered claim and where GEICO determined that the vehicle was a total loss and did not pay to repair the damage to the vehicle, where the insured did not retain the total-loss vehicle and where GEICO did not include ACV Sales Tax in the Total Loss Claim Payment(s)." GEICO is a private American auto insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LUg58S at no extra charge.[CC] GEICO: Russo Pending Class Cert Bid Terminated ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSO v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-17234-BRM-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge James B. Clark, III entered a class certification order as follows: 1) The Plaintiff's pending class certification motion is terminated as it was filed without the Court's leave in violation of the Pretrial Scheduling Order entered in this matter on February 10, 2022. 2) All discovery shall be completed by April 14, 2023. 3) Any discovery disputes shall be raised to the Court via joint letter from the parties of five (5) pages or less by no later than April 21, 2023. 4) The Court will conduct a telephone status conference with the parties on May 3, 2023 at 11:30 AM. Government Employees is a private American auto insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lzPkvZ at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over "Chevy Shake" Defect ------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Stoogenke at wsoctv.com reports that there's a major development in a lawsuit that involves a story Action 9′s been investigating since 2019. Jason Stoogenke was one of the first reporters in the country to report on the so-called "Chevy Shake." Since then, hundreds of drivers have complained to him -- more than almost any other consumer issue. Now, a judge has agreed to make a lawsuit filed in the case a class action, which means all drivers who bought certain vehicles will be included -- not just the people who sued. So far, more than 300 people have contacted Stoogenke from 30 states and Canada, many of whom have sent him videos. They said they drive GM models and that they shake all of a sudden -- they say at times, they shake uncontrollably. Plaintiffs sued GM in 2019. They officially asked the court to make the suit a class action early last year. Now, more than a year later, the judge has said yes. The class would include anyone who bought certain vehicles new from an authorized GM dealer before March 1, 2019. 2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado 2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado 2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette 2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro 2015-2019 Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV 2016-2019 Cadillac ATS, ATS-V, CTS, CT6, and CTS-V 2015-2019 GMC Sierra, Yukon, Yukon XL, and Yukon Denali XL 2017-2019 GMC Canyon The lawsuit only covers vehicles up until 2019 because that was the year it was filed. For drivers who bought newer GM models with the same vibration issue, there's a class action lawsuit already filed for those. It covers 2019 to 2022 models, and the judge hasn't decided yet whether to say yes or no to it being a class action since its a newer case. Here are the models included in that case: 2019 Chevy Corvette 2019 Cadillac ATS, ATS-V, CTS, CT6, and CTS-V 2019-2022 Chevy Camaro, Colorado, and Silverado 2019-2022 GMC Canyon and Sierra [GN] GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in Norman's 2nd Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, FAITH NORMAN, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09940-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss Norman's Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff challenges claims made on the Defendant's products that its products are "Non GMO." She alleges nine causes of action against the Defendant: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Business and Professions Code sections 17500, et seq.; (3) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Civil Code sections 1750, et seq.; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (6) unjust enrichment/restitution; (7) negligent misrepresentation; (8) fraud; and (9) fraudulent misrepresentation. Now before the Court for consideration is the Defendant motion to dismiss the AAC. Judge White has considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in the case, and he finds the motion can be resolved without oral argument. He vacates the hearing set for March 31, 2023. Each of the Plaintiff's claims are based on the same underlying facts and legal theory: The Defendant advertises its Products as Non GMO when they are not. The Plaintiff has removed the conditional language used in the FAC. She also alleges that she lacks an adequate remedy at law because to obtain a full refund she would be required to prove the Products had no market value. She also alleges that she would be required to make greater showings to prove her CLRA and common law claims than she would under the UCL or the FAL. Finally, she alleges damages are less prompt because a jury trial may take longer than a bench trial, rendering damages less prompt and certain. Judge White concludes that the Plaintiff fails to allege she lacks an adequate remedy at law. He says the allegations do not establish that the damages the Plaintiff seeks are necessarily inadequate or incomplete. That is, the Plaintiff's inability to obtain damages would result from her CLRA and common law claims' failure on the merits not that there is an inherent limitation of the legal remedy that renders it inadequate. Accordingly, he grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses the claims for equitable restitution and unjust enrichment. He does not grant leave to amend at this time, but he will not preclude the Plaintiff from seeking leave to amend as the litigation proceeds. The Plaintiff continues to define GMOs as organisms that have been altered through genetic modification. She also includes a list of ingredients in the Defendant's Products that she alleges are GMOs, including Mixed Tocopheryls (i.e., D-Alpha Tocopheryl Acetate)/Vitamin E (hereinafter "Mixed Tocopheryls"). The Defendant argues the Mixed Tocopheryl claims should be dismissed for the same reasons the Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's claims based on "Category 2" ingredients. Judge White denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss claims based on Mixed Tocopheryls/Vitamin E. He finds that the Court previously concluded that the guide the Plaintiff referenced stated the ingredients "may" be Non GMO and declined to accept as true allegations that those ingredients are, in fact, GMOs. And, although the Plaintiff's allegations regarding Mixed Tocopheryls are not as detailed as other ingredients, such as citric acid or soy lecithin, it is reasonable to infer that each of the listed ingredients fall within one of the two larger categories set forth in paragraphs 41(a) and 41(b). Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied in part. For the foregoing reasons, Judge White grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The parties will submit the stipulation and proposed scheduling order required by Docket No. 46 by April 7, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yj4f4dyu from Leagle.com. GRANITE SERVICES: Rodriguez Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND FIELDCORE SERVICES SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02689-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting the following documents to be filed under seal: Exhibit E, Exhibit H, Exhibit I and Exhibit J. Only the Court, the Plaintiff's counsel and the Defendants' counsel should have access to the documents referenced within this Motion without further order of the Court. On June 14, 2022, the Court entered the Parties Agreed Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order. On January 5, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. On March 6, 2023, the Defendants' Counsel contacted the Plaintiff's Counsel to inform them that these documents are subject to the Parties' Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order and should not have been filed on the public docket. the Plaintiff does not disagree and apologies for the inadvertent oversight. Granite Services provides service solutions to the power generation industry. A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42BMkzJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8581 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER B URCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (710) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com GRIDSUM HOLDING: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due May 12 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Xu v. Gridsum Holding Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03655-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order granting the parties' request for an extension of time to file their opposition and reply papers to Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- The Defendants' opposition is due no later than May 12, 2023. -- The Lead Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due no later than June 13, 2023. Gridsum Holding is a provider of cloud-based big-data analytics and AI solutions for multinational and domestic enterprises and government agencies. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40Gqpps at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Tu, Esq. COOLEY LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 561 3205 Facsimile: (213) 561 3244 E-mail: mctu@cooley.com HARMON STORES: Palmeri Sues Over Mass Layoff Without 60-Day Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL PALMERI, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by HARMON STORES, INC. and/or BED BATH & BEYOND, INC. v. HARMON STORES, INC. and BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01682 (D.N.J., Mar. 24, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to provide at least 60 days' written notice to the Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class prior to the termination of their employment in violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Restraining Notification Act and the New Jersey Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. In February and March of 2023, the Defendants carried out a termination of operations and/or mass layoff that resulted in the loss of employment for at least 33% of its workforce and at least 50 full-time employees, not including part-time employees. The Named Plaintiff did not receive written notice that complied with the NJ WARN Act or Federal WARN Act at least 60 days in advance of the termination of his employment, nor did he receive as much notice as practicable under the circumstances, the lawsuit contends. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members severance pay equal to one week of pay for each full year of employment, which shall be paid at the average regular rate of compensation received during the employee's last three years of employment with the employer or the final regular rate of compensation paid to the employee, whichever rate is higher. The Defendants are liable to the Named Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for backpay and benefits for each day of the violation up to a maximum of 60 days, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, the lawsuit claims. This action is brought on behalf of the Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class consisting of each and every person who worked for Defendants and had their employment terminated as a result of Defendants' mass layoffs, termination of operations, and/or plant closure or whose employment was terminated as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs, termination of operations, and/or plant closure ordered by Defendants. Plaintiff Palmeri was employed by the Defendants as a Store Manager from 2015 until March 2, 2023. Harmon Stores, Inc. operates as a cosmetics, and health and beauty care discount retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com llusher@vandallp.com - and - Mahir Nisar, Esq. Susan Ghim, Esq. Casey Wolnowski, Esq. NISAR LAW GROUP, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (646) 889-1011 E-mail: mnisar@nisarlaw.com sghim@Nisarlaw.com cwolnowski@nisarlaw.com HELIOS CABLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Smith Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Smith and Jeff Edinger, Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Helios Cable Construction LLC, and Philip Agnew, Case No. 2:23-cv-01068-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 24, 2023) seeks to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are those similarly situated persons who worked for Defendants as "independent contractors" for three years preceding the filing of this Complaint and through the final disposition of this matter, and were paid hourly for all hours worked but did not receive overtime for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek. According to the complaint, the Defendants improperly classified the Named Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members as independent contractors. The classification was improper because the Named Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members were not in business for themselves. Instead, they were economically dependent upon Defendants for their work. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members routinely work (and worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek but were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rate of pay. The decision by the Defendants not to classify the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members as employees and to pay them overtime compensation was neither reasonable nor in good faith, the uit contends. Plaintiff Smith worked for the Defendants as an aerial construction foreman/laborer from January of 2022 to July of 2022. Plaintiff Edinger worked for the Defendants as an aerial construction laborer from March of 2022 to July of 2022. HCC operates as a fiber optic cable construction company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 787-4878 Facsimile: (614) 957-7515 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com HOME POINT: Al-Johar Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Home Point Capital Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-11457-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Lead Plaintiff Abdulaziz Jamal Johar Al-Johar asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a class consisting of the following: "All persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point common stock in the IPO or purchased Home Point common stock thereafter in the stock market pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO and were damaged thereby;" Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of the Individual the Defendants' immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which the officers and directors of the Company have or had a controlling interest; 2. appointing himself as class representative; and 3. appointing the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as class counsel. Home Point is a residential mortgage originator and servicer. A copy of the the Lead Plaintiff's motion dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3niPcRM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Johnson, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. Ana Avalos Cuellar, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 432-5100 E-mail: chadj@rgrdlaw.com jzweig@rgrdlaw.com aavalos@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. Francis E. Judd, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com fjudd@vmtlaw.com HOWARD BARTON: Faces Ovalle ERISA Suit Over Unfair Del-Air Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Julissa Ovalle, Lynne Cassani, Angel Buitrago, Michael Mize, and Cynthia Medina, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust for the Employees of Del-Air Heating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc. (the "ESOP") v. Howard Barton, Diane Dello Russo, Donald Fortin, Charles Brinkley, James Urbach, and Astara Capital Partners Fund I, L.P., Case No. 6:23-cv-00551 (M.D. Fla., Mar. 24, 2023) alleges that the Defendants forced the ESOP to sell control of Del-Air for less than fair market value in the wake of the company founder's death, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, instead of acting in the interest of Del-Air employees, the Defendants looked out for their own interests, looked the other way, or knowingly profited from the unfair deal, the Plaintiff contends. As a result, the Plaintiffs and other ESOP participants lost more than half their retirement benefits. Beginning in spring 2022 or earlier, Mr. Barton acted as an agent of both the seller (the ESOP) and the potential buyer (the Astara Fund and its affiliates). The Del-Air board did not shop the company in the marketplace and dealt only with Barton and Astara Capital as potential buyers. After the deal was substantially complete, Mr. Barton resigned from Del-Air's board on October 1, 2022. Accordingly, Barton, Diane Dello Russo, Fortin, and Brinkley caused the prohibited transactions in their capacities as the ESOP fiduciaries responsible for recommending Urbach, as trustee, to transfer the ESOP's shares in the deal. Defendant Urbach also caused the prohibited transactions in his capacity as the ESOP fiduciary who ultimately voted for and executed the transfer on behalf of the ESOP. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the ESOP, and on behalf of ESOP participants as a class, to recover lost benefits, remedy the Defendants' unlawful conduct, and prevent future harm to the ESOP. Plaintiff Julissa Ovalle worked for Del-Air between 2000 and 2022 and has a current account in the ESOP. Plaintiff Lynne Cassani worked for Del-Air between 2012 and 2022 and has a current account in the ESOP. They both lost more than half the value of her ESOP benefits through the recapitalization transaction. Howard Barton is a natural person residing in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. He was a member of Del-Air's board of directors between June 2021 and October 1, 2022.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. Ryan Morgan, Esq. James J. Henson, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone 813-223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com RMorgan@forthepeople.com jjhenson@forthepeople.com - and - Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE MCDONOUGH THOMPSON & THOMSON LLC 729 N Washington Ave, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 E-mail: cengstrom@engstromlee.com mthomson@engstromlee.com JOHN MCKOWEN: Class Settlement in Paulson Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN PAULSON, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. JOHN R. MCKOWEN, WAYNE HARDING, and TIMOTHY BEALL, Case No. 1:19-cv-02639-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement; 2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees, incentive award, and reimbursement of litigation expenses; and 3. certifying the class as follows pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of settlement only: "All persons or entities that currently hold claims based on securities in GrowCo, and purchased or otherwise acquired the securities through Offerings during the period of October 2014 through December 2017 (the "Class Period");" For the avoidance of doubt, persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities during the Class Period and who have assigned the securities to VitaNova Partners, LLC are not excluded as Class Members by virtue of such assignment. Excluded from the Class are (1) the Defendants; (2) the officers and directors of Two Rivers and GrowCo during the Class Period as set forth in the attached Exhibit E for securities purchased at the time or after they were officers or directors; (3) any judge or judicial officer who may hear any aspect of this Class Action and his or her law clerks; and (4) except as provided in clause (2) of this paragraph above, all persons or entities released in the Settlement. The Court further ordered that: -- The Court gives final approval to the Settlement Agreement in all respects and authorizes and directs the parties to consummate the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms and provisions. -- The Plaintiff shall file the Settlement Agreement as a separate docket entry within seven days of the entry of this order. -- The parties and their counsel shall fulfill their obligations and duties under the Settlement Agreement. -- The Plaintiff and all class members are permanently enjoined and barred from asserting, initiating, prosecuting, or continuing any of the claims released by the Settlement Agreement. -- The Class Counsel is awarded $495,959.12 from the Settlement Fund, which represents one third of the net Settlement Fund. -- The Plaintiff John Paulson is awarded an incentive award of $5,000 from the Settlement Fund. -- The Class Counsel shall be reimbursed $6,650.65 in costs from the Settlement Fund. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FMaaPn at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss Amended Hernandez Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDUARDO HERNANDEZ et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-15679 (ZNQ) (TJB) (D.N.J.), Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The matter comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Eduardo Hernandez, Greg Hofer, Margaret Criner, Robert Urantia, Terri Else, Thomas Butler, Glenn Parker, and Maura Tuso's Amended Class Action Complaint, brought by the Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The Plaintiffs opposed the Defendant's motion and the Defendant replied. After careful consideration of the Parties' submissions, Judge Quraishi decides the Motion without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons he set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and other good cause shown, he grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, all Counts within the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk's Office will terminate ECF No. 69 and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/42s94dw2 from Leagle.com. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Dismisses Hernandez Suit With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDUARDO HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-15679 (ZNQ) (TJB) (D.N.J.), Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Eduardo Hernandez, Margaret Criner, Terri Else, Thomas Butler, Glenn Parker, and Maura Tuso's Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs are individuals who were allegedly misled or deceived by the Defendant to purchase Tylenol rapid release gelcaps. Specifically, they allege they previously purchased Rapid Release Gelcaps over other Tylenol brand and other acetaminophen products solely or in part because Rapid Release Gelcaps were advertised and labeled as 'rapid release' offering 'rapid relief' and they hoped for fast pain relief. As such, the Plaintiffs aver the Defendant misled them into believing that the Rapid Release Gelcaps would provide faster relief than other, cheaper acetaminophen products, such as the traditional Tylenol tablets. They would not have purchased the Rapid Release Gelcaps had the Defendant disclosed accurate information about the products. In alleging the Defendant's deception, the Plaintiffs allege that the term 'rapid release' does not actually mean that the drug works faster for consumers than non-rapid release products. Instead, they cite "a new study" that allegedly demonstrates Rapid Release Gelcaps dissolve slower than the Defendant's non-rapid release products. No individual Plaintiff alleges that they will continue to buy Rapid Release Gelcaps in the future. Instead, all their allegations allege only past harm from their previous purchase of the product. On July 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in the Court. On Sept. 27, 2019, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' original Complaint. On May 19, 2020, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' original Complaint was granted in part and denied in part. After the Court's Order, only four of the Plaintiffs' original nine claims remained against the Defendant. The four claims remaining were (1) violation of California False Advertising Law; (2) violation of California Unfair Competition Law; (3) violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and (4) unjust enrichment individually and on behalf of the National Class. The Plaintiffs' original Complaint sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment, among other things. On July 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On July 29, 2022, the Court granted that motion. Subsequently, on Aug. 2, 2022, the Plaintiffs timely filed their Amended Complaint. Their Amended Complaint only brings three counts against the Defendant: (1) violation of California False Advertising Law; (2) violation of California Unfair Competition Law; and (3) violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Moreover, their Amended Complaint only seeks injunctive relief against the Defendant. On Sept. 23, 2022, the Defendant brought the instant motion, seeking to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. It contends that Third Circuit precedent dictates the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed because the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing. The Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that because standing is a "substantive law issue," California and Ninth Circuit case law must guide the Court's standing analysis. Judge Quraishi finds that the Plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief and the allegations in their Amended Complaint allege only past harm from the Defendant's allegedly deceptive practices. The Plaintiffs, in bringing the class action lawsuit, also implicitly recognize that they are aware of the harm Rapid Release Gelcaps cause. As such, viewing the Plaintiffs as rational actors in the free market possessing information that affects their purchasing decisions, there is no risk of future harm where the Plaintiffs will presumably no longer purchase the Defendant's Rapid Release Gelcaps. For this reason, the Plaintiffs cannot show an injury in fact, and therefore, they lack Article III standing to bring their claims. For these reasons and because the Plaintiffs were already granted leave to amend their pleadings, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8jt63j from Leagle.com. JP BODEN: Secretly Reports Visitor's Info to FB, Rodriguez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ REBEKAH RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP BODEN SERVICES INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a/ BODENUSA.COM, Case No. 3:23-cv-00534-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal., Mar. 24, 2023) alleges that whenever someone watches a video on https://www.bodenusa.com website, the Defendant secretly reports all the details to Meta, Inc (and its subsidiary Facebook) the visitor's personally identifiable information, and the titles watched, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Defendant utilized the Facebook Tracking Pixel to compel the Plaintiffs' web browser to transfer Plaintiffs' identifying information, like their Facebook IDs, along with Plaintiff's event data, like the title of the videos viewed. Accordingly, When a visitor views the video on bodenusa.com while logged into Facebook, the Defendant knowingly compels a visitor's browser to transmit the c user cookie to Facebook. The c user cookie contains that visitor's unencrypted Facebook ID. The Defendant knowingly disclosed Plaintiff's and Class members' PII because the Defendant used that data to build audiences on Facebook and retarget them for its advertising campaigns, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff and Class members did not provide Defendant with any form of consent—either written or otherwise—to disclose their PII to third parties, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff is a citizen of California who resides in this Judicial District. The Plaintiff is also a consumer advocate who played and watched a video in February 2023 on Defendant's website at the link https://www.bodenusa.com/en-us/boden-quality-clothing#Footer. JP Boden is a "video tape service providers" that creates, hosts, and delivers videos on its websites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com KINDERFARMS LLC: Faces Noori Suit Over Kids' Medicine False Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA NOORI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KINDERFARMS LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01409-DMR (N.D. Cal., Mar. 24, 2023) alleges that the Defendant makes false and misleading "non-toxic" claims about its KinderMed children's medicine product line, including "Pain & Fever," "Cough & Congestion," and "Nighttime Cold & Cough" over the counter medicines, to sell KinderFarms products at a premium price. According to the complaint, even though the Defendant knows that the ingredients in KinderMed products are in fact toxic, the Defendant continues to make "non-toxic" misrepresentations because Defendant also knows that consumers choose KinderMed over other products based on "non-toxic" labeling statements, the Plaintiff contends. The Products each contain either Acetaminophen, Dextromethorphan, or Diphenhydramine, which are all inherently toxic substances. The majority of KinderMed Products prominently display the "OUR PROMISE" box containing the Toxicity Representations at issue. These Toxicity Representations are contrary to the widespread expert consensus that acetaminophen carries toxicity potential, as reflected in FDA information and guidance from health professionals, making KinderFarms' "Promise" objectively false and misleading, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members thus suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendant's deceptive and false representations. The Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, and seeks to represent a National Class and a California Subclass. The Plaintiff also seeks relief in this action individually and on behalf of purchasers of the KinderMed Products in California for violation of Civil Code, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law. In November 2022, the Plaintiff Noori purchased KinderMed Kids' Pain & 22 Fever for $6.99 from a brick and mortar Walgreens store in San Leandro, California. Prior to her purchase of the Product, the Plaintiff Noori reviewed the product's labeling and packaging and saw that the Product was purportedly "non-toxic" on the side panel. KinderFarms manufactures, sells, and/or distributes KinderMed-branded products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Jenna L. Gavenman BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jgavenman@bursor.com KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: $400K Deal in Martinez Suit Has Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ROBERT MARTINEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba ARIZONA KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01730-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement and conditional certification of settlement class filed on Jan. 30, 2023. The Plaintiff and the putative class members were employed as truck drivers by the Defendant. Their job responsibilities included making deliveries of dry goods, produce, materials, and other products to various businesses located throughout California. The Plaintiff and the putative class members allege that they typically worked between 10 and 14 hours per day, 5 to 6 days per week, and 52 weeks per year. According to the allegations of the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide class members with appropriate meal and rest breaks as required under California law. Moreover, although the class members were compensated based on a piece-rate formula, the Defendant did not pay them a separate hourly wage to compensate them for rest breaks and for performing non-driving tasks. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff originally filed his class action complaint in the Tulare County Superior Court on Sept. 30, 2016. His complaint asserts wage, hour, and other labor-related claims in violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, which he alleges give rise to penalties under California's Private Attorney's General Act ("PAGA"). The Defendant answered the complaint on Nov. 10, 2016 and removed the case to this Court on diversity grounds under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C Section 1332(d), on Nov. 14, 2016. On March 21, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to change venue seeking transfer of the action to the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The motion was denied on June 23, 2017. On March 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class, which was granted on Dec. 3, 2018. The Court certified the following class: All current and former truck drivers employed by defendant Knight Transportation, Inc., who advised defendant that they resided in Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and/or Colorado, who were paid in whole or in part on a piece-rate basis, and who drove one or more routes of five hours or more entirely within the State of California for defendant during the Class Period from Sept. 30, 2012 through Dec. 3, 2018. The Class was certified as to the following causes of action: 1. The Plaintiff's first cause of action for the Defendant's failure to provide duty-free meal breaks and pay missed meal break premium in violation of Labor Code Section 512 and 226.7 and Wage Order No. 9-2001, Section 11 (challenging the Defendant's uniform cargo security policy that drivers had to watch their trucks at all times, even while eating); 2. The Plaintiff's second cause of action for the Defendant's failure to pay Class members separately and hourly for time spent on inspections and detention time in California in violation of Labor Code Sections 1194 and 226.2 (challenging the Defendant's uniform compensation policy that paid its non-resident drivers for routes that began and ended in California on a per mile basis with some additional hourly pay for detention time over two hours, but no separate and hourly pay for inspection and detention time); 3. The Plaintiff's third cause of action for the Defendant's failure to provide the Class with paid rest breaks and pay rest break premiums for unpaid rest breaks of the Class members on their California routes in violation of Labor Code Section 226.7 and Wage Order No. 9-2001, Section 12(A)-(B) (challenging the Defendant's uniform compensation and rest break policy and practice failed to provide separate and hourly pay for the Class members' rest periods on their routes that began and ended in California); and 4. The Plaintiff's sixth cause of action for the Defendant's unfair business practices, in violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. (the UCL), based entirely on the foregoing violations, all of which occurred 100% within the State of California. The parties agreed to participate in private mediation and an exchange of additional informal discovery and information. In June 2021, the parties attended an all-day mediation before Mark S. Rudy, who Plaintiff's counsel describes as a well-respected wage and hour mediator. On Nov. 10, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, which was denied without prejudice on Oct. 25, 2022. On Jan. 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the instant renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. For settlement purposes, the parties request approval of the following class of an estimated 5,500 individuals: "All current and former truck drivers employed by defendant Knight Transportation, Inc., who advised defendant that they resided in Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and/or Colorado, who were paid in whole or in part on a piece-rate basis, and who drove one or more routes of five hours or more entirely within the State of California for defendant during the 'Class Period' from September 30, 2012, through preliminary approval" of the settlement." The Plaintiff has defined "PAGA Claim Members" as "any and all Class Members, who worked for Defendant at any time from September 27, 2015 up to preliminary approval" of the settlement. Twenty-five percent of the civil PAGA penalties will be paid to the PAGA Claim Members as part of their PAGA payment share. For settlement purposes, the parties have defined the "Class Period" as the period from Sept. 30, 2012 through preliminary approval of the settlement. By contrast, the relevant period for the PAGA claims is Sept. 27, 2015, through preliminary approval. The Settlement Agreement defines the Released Parties as "(a) all of Knight's present and former parent companies, subsidiaries, related or affiliated companies (including but not limited to Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. and Knight Truck and Trailer Sales LLC); (b) Knight's divisions, and (c) the present and former officers, directors, members, managers, shareholders, agents, insurers, administrators, fiduciaries, trustees, operators, partners, joint ventures, franchisees, franchisors, consultants, contractors, attorneys, successors or assignees." Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will pay a total of $400,000 (the "Gross Settlement Amount" or "GSA") allocated as follows: (1) up to $100,000 (25% of the GSA) for attorney's fees and up to $20,000 for litigation costs; (2) $10,000 incentive award for the Plaintiff; (3) $20,000 in civil PAGA penalties, with $15,000 of the penalties payable to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA");4 and (4) an estimated $29,558 in settlement administration costs. Assuming these allocations are awarded in full, approximately $225,442 (the "Net Settlement Amount" or "NSA") will be available for distribution to Settlement Class Members who submit a claim form and who do not submit a timely and valid election not to participate in the settlement. The NSA will be divided by the "Total Calendar Weeks," i.e., the total number of calendar weeks worked by all Settlement Class Members during the Class Period, and the resulting number will be the "Calendar Week Value." Each Participating Class Member's payment under the Settlement Agreement will be calculated by multiplying his or her number of calendar weeks worked during the Class Period by the Calendar Week Value. PAGA Claim Members (whether or not they are Settlement Class Members or Participating Class Members) will be allocated a pro rata portion of the $5,000 PAGA allocation ("Individual PAGA Claim Payments"), which will be divided evenly between the PAGA Claim Members and added to the amount they will receive as Participating Class Member or will be sent separately for Settlement Class Members who have not filed a Claim Form or Class Members that have opted out of the Settlement. The resulting sum of the two component payments for the Class Members who are also PAGA Claim Members will equal each Participating Class Member's "Individual Settlement Payment." For Class Members who are not PAGA Claim Members, their Individual Settlement Payment will consist solely of the amount that is the product of their calendar weeks worked within the Class Period times the Calendar Week Value PAGA Claim Members who opt-out of the class settlement will still receive their Individual PAGA payment, since there is no right to opt-out of a PAGA settlement. The settlement is "partially reversionary": only Participating Class Members will receive Settlement Payments and only PAGA Claims Members will be allocated and forwarded Individual PAGA Claim Payments, and those amounts not claimed, subject to a "50% floor" on distribution of the NSA. Within 60 days after the notice is mailed, the Class Members will be required to accurately complete and sign a "Claim Form." The Settlement Class Members who do not properly or timely submit a Claim Form will not be entitled to any portion of the NSA (other than payments from the PAGA allocation) but will be bound by the release contained in the Settlement Agreement. Assuming 100 percent participation, the average settlement amount per Participating Class Member will be approximately $40.99 ($225,442 ÷ 5,500). The Class Members who do not wish to participate in the settlement or object thereto must give notice within 60 days of the Settlement Administrator mailing out Notice Packets. If 15% or more of the Class Members opt-out of the settlement, the Defendant may elect to rescind the settlement, such that the settlement will become null and void. Any checks to Participating Class Members that are not cancelled within 180 days from issuance will be deemed void and the Individual Settlement Amount associated with the uncashed check will be deposited with the Department of Industrial Relations Unpaid Wages Fund in California in the name of the Settlement Class Member or PAGA Claim Member who failed to cash their check. On Dec. 3, 2018, the Court granted preliminary certification of the proposed class under Rule 23 and found that Plaintiff had satisfied Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation and Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements of predominance and superiority. Judge Oberto does not revisit its analysis in this regard because the parties' proposed settlement class is materially identical to the class that was previously certified. The only difference is the Class Period which is extended from the date of class certification to the date of preliminary approval of the settlement. Accordingly, Judge Oberto grants conditional certification of the settlement class as defined by the parties in the Settlement Agreement, as follows: "All current and former truck drivers employed by defendant Knight Transportation, Inc., who advised defendant that they resided in Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and/or Colorado, who were paid in whole or in part on a piece-rate basis, and who drove one or more routes of five hours or more entirely within the State of California for defendant during the 'Class Period' from September 30, 2012 through preliminary approval" of the settlement Judge Oberto then concludes that the Plaintiff has made an adequate showing sufficient to warrant a preliminary finding that the proposed settlement amount and allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court approves an incentive payment in an amount of $10,000 to be awarded to Robert Martinez as the named Plaintiff. Judge Oberto finds that the requested amount is reasonable and is approved on a preliminary basis. Judge Oberto also finds that the notice and the manner of notice proposed by the Plaintiff meets the requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and, considering his updated briefing, that the proposed mail delivery procedure is appropriate under these circumstances. The settlement provides that the class counsel will seek an award of 25% of the GSA, equivalent to $100,000. This fee amount, according to Judge Oberto, is consistent with the benchmark rate in the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, she approves the attorney's fee request on a preliminary basis. However, in connection with the final fairness determination, she will consider any objections as well as updated lodestar evidence presented by the counsel to determine whether the fee award of 25% is reasonable. The parties have agreed to retain Atticus Administration, LLC to handle the notice and claim administration process. The estimated cost of administering this settlement is "not to exceed $29,558," which will be deducted from the Gross Settlement Amount. Judge Oberto says this estimate is consistent with, and in some cases lower than, other settlements submitted to the Court. Accordingly, she appoints Atticus Administration, LLC as the Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Agreement sets forth an implementation schedule that may be summarized by the following table: a. Deadline for the Settlement Administrator to send a Notice Packet to each Class Member - 30 days after preliminary approval of the settlement b. Deadline to file a Claim Form, Opt-Out Letter, objection to the Settlement, or a dispute related to the stated number of calendar weeks worked during the Settlement Class Period - 60 days after the initial mailing of the Notice Packet c. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to provide counsel with a report listing the number of Class Members and PAGA Claim Members who received Notice, the number of Settlement Class Members and PAGA Claim Members, the number of Participating Class Members, the number and names of those Class Members who submitted opt-out notices, the total amount of all Individual Settlement Payments to be made to Settlement Class Members, the total amount of all Individual PAGA Claim Payments to be made to the PAGA Claim Members, and the average and maximum Individual Settlement Payments and Individual PAGA Claim Payments - Seven days after the Response Deadline d. Deadline for Defendant to deposit with Settlement Administrator the Settlement Funds- 30 days after Effective Date, as defined in the Settlement Agreement e. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to issue checks to Class and PAGA claimants - 15 days after the Deposit Date f. Deadline for recipients to cash Settlement Checks - 180 from the date of mailing g. Deadline for Class Counsel to provide to the Court a declaration by the Settlement Administrator of due diligence and proof of mailing of the Notice Packets - 14 days prior to the final approval hearing Judge Oberto approves this schedule and sets the Final Approval Hearing for Sept. 20, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7 (SKO) to allow adequate time for the foregoing events to take place. For these reasons, Judge Oberto grants the Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement and conditional certification of settlement class. The hearing on the Plaintiff's renewed motion, set for March 29, 2023, is vacated. The proposed class identified in the Settlement Agreement is certified for settlement purposes. For settlement purposes, (i) the Plaintiff's counsel, Craig J. Ackermann of Ackerman & Tilajef, P.C. and Julian Hammond of HammondLaw, P.C., are appointed as the class counsel; (ii) Named Plaintiff Robert Martinez is appointed as the class representative; and (iii) Atticus Administration, LLC is approved as the settlement claims administrator. The proposed notice is approved in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The proposed settlement is approved on a preliminary basis as fair and adequate. The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set for Sept. 20, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto in Courtroom 7, with the motion for final approval of class action settlement to be filed at least 35 days in advance of the final approval hearing, in accordance with Local Rule 230(b). Among other things the parties deem appropriate, the parties are directed to provide the Court with the information in footnote 9 in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement. The settlement implementation schedule set forth is adopted. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdemrbnv from Leagle.com. KONING & ASSOCIATES: Willis Loses Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY WILLIS, v. KONING & ASSOCIATES, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00819-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order denying motion for class certification: "all current and former insurance adjusters employed by Koning & Associates from December 15, 2017 through the date of the order granting class certification." The Court concludes Willis has not shown that common questions of law and fact predominate. Further, Willis has not satisfied the typicality requirement. The Court determines that common questions do not predominate as to misclassification. The Court further determines that Willis has not satisfied typicality as to this theory of liability. The Court further notes that the Plaintiff's other claims all rely on a determination that employees were misclassified as exempt. The Plaintiff does not assert that there was a common policy that prevented adjusters from taking meal or rest breaks, but merely that there was a lack of policy as to meal and rest breaks at all. The Court determines that common questions do not predominate as to meal and rest breaks. Instead, the Court would 1 be required to conduct individualized inquiries for each class member to determine whether K&A complied with the meal and rest break laws. As alleged in the Complaint, the Plaintiff Willis is a former employee of Koning & Associates, where he worked as a general insurance adjuster. He alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate insurance adjusters for all the time they worked. Willis states that K&A compensated class members for hours billed to clients, not hours actually worked, and that they improperly classified adjusters as exempt employees. He also alleges that K&A failed to provide proper meal breaks or rest periods and that it failed to reimburse class members for mileage. The Plaintiff alleges that K&A improperly classified its adjusters as exempt employees. To be classified as exempt, an employee must meet the salary basis test. Koning & Associates is an insurance company that provides general liability and commercial property solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FIow3y at no extra charge.[CC] LATITUDE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach Allegations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Kruger at smh.com.au reports that the growing backlash against lax corporate cybersecurity in Australia has hit Latitude Financial with a class action being launched following its recent hack, while a consumer privacy group slammed the lack of accountability among Australian businesses over the loss of sensitive customer data. Gordon Legal and Hayden Stephens and Associates (HSA) announced they are investigating potential legal action against Latitude Financial over recent data breach allegations that the majority of current and former customers had sensitive data stolen. This includes the driver's licence numbers of 7.9 million Australian and New Zealand customers. "We are investigating how a breach of this size could occur. Latitude customers deserve to understand their legal rights and the steps that have been taken to protect their personal data," Gordon Legal's James Naughton said. The investigation will examine how the breach occurred, including the effectiveness of Latitude's security measures, and whether the consumer finance group took appropriate steps to protect its customers' personal information. The federal government also appears to be losing patience after yet another massive theft of sensitive customer data. Cybersecurity Minister Clare O'Neil said that the massive volume of data stolen during the recent cyber incident is deeply concerning. "This comes after the large-scale loss of identity information following the Optus and Medibank incidents. The Government shares the frustration and concern experienced by many citizens who fear their data may now have been stolen on multiple occasions," she said. Digital privacy group Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), said more needed to be done to protect sensitive data. "People are now at constant risk of identity fraud—and worse—because organisations collect too much information, keep it too long, and store it insecurely," said EFA's chair Justin Warren. "It's clear that existing privacy protections are ineffective and must be changed. Organisations have had more than enough time to take action on their own, and have chosen not to. They must now be forced to change their ways." Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws require certain financial service provider to keep customer identification records for seven years after they have stopped using its services. In related news, casino operator Crown Resorts said it was investigating a cyberattack, but added its customer data had not been impacted. Crown said it was one of many organisations that used the third-party file transfer service, GoAnywhere, which has been hit by a data breach globally. "We were recently contacted by a ransomware group who claim they have illegally obtained a limited number of Crown files. We are investigating the validity of this claim as a matter of priority," Crown said in a statement. "We can confirm no customer data has been compromised, and our business operations have not been impacted. "We are continuing to work with law enforcement and have notified our gaming regulators as part of the ongoing investigation and will provide relevant updates, as necessary." Other Australian companies impacted by the GoAnywhere incident include Rio Tinto, which said that data on former and current employees, including payroll details, may have been stolen.[GN] LLOYD'S OF LONDON: LAL, et al., Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINCOLN ADVENTURES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and MICHIGAN MULTI-KING, INC., a Michigan Corporation, on Behalf of Themselves and All Those Similarly Situated, v. THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON MEMBERS OF SYNDICATES, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00235-CCC-ESK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities in the United States who purchased or renewed a contract of insurance with any Lloyd's Syndicates from January 1, 2002 through February 12, 2016." The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs Lincoln Adventures, LLC and Michigan Multi-King, Inc. as representatives of the Class. Additionally, the Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g) to confirm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Zwerling, Schacter & Zwerling as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nvPTHv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel L. Jensen, Esq. Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq. Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq. Carmen A. Medici, Esq. Paul J. Geller, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 - and - Robert S. Schachter, Esq. Justin M. Tarshis, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 Facsimile: (212) 371-5969 - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 895-5005 Facsimile: (206) 895-3131 - and - Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West – Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 Facsimile: (201) 845-9423 - and - H. Sullivan Bunch, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 - and - Robert M. Foote, Esq. Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC 10 West State Street, Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 232-7450 Facsimile: (630) 232-7452 - and - Ellen Meriwether, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market Street, Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 Facsimile: (215) 864-2810 - and - David M. Foster, Esq. DAVID M. FOSTER, P.C. 30833 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 209 Farmington, MI 48334 Telephone: (248) 855-0940 Facsimile: (248) 855-0987 LYFT INC: S.D. New York Certifies Three Classes in Lowell Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HARRIET LOWELL, et al., Plaintiffs v. LYFT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-06251 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M. Halpern of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: a. grants in part and denies in part the motion for class certification filed by Plaintiffs Harriet Lowell and Westchester Disabled on the Move, Inc. ("WDOMI"); and b. certifies the three proposed classes. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause's Dec. 22, 2022, Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiffs and certifies the three proposed classes. Objections to the Report were due on Jan. 5, 2023. On Dec. 23, 2022, Lyft sought, and the Court granted, an extension of time to file objections. The Defendant filed its objections on Jan. 19, 2023, and, after an additional extension was granted, the Plaintiff's response thereto was filed on Feb. 16, 2023. The Court also permitted the filing of a brief by Amici Curiae, Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, the National Council on Independent Living, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and United Spinal Association, which was filed on Feb. 23, 2023. The Defendant challenges Magistrate Judge Krause's findings and recommendations concerning the Plaintiffs' standing as to their claims regarding the Non-Access Regions and the Rule 23 requirements for class certification, urging the Court to reject the Report and enter judgment in its favor based on the Plaintiffs' failure to establish Article III standing. Underscoring each of the Defendant's specific objections, as framed by the Defendant, are two alleged general errors permeating the Report: (1) "accepting the false equivalence" proffered by the Plaintiffs between access to a feature in the app with access to transportation; and (2) presuming that the act of discrimination in this case is the failure to provide WAV service. Judge Halpern disagrees with each of the Defendant's depictions of the Report. As to the first issue, Magistrate Judge Krause did not conflate access to the app with access to transportation. He simply recognized that drivers cannot offer WAV services without Defendant first making that option available in the Non-Access Regions. As to the second issue, Magistrate Judge Krause clearly identified the Plaintiffs' allegations of discrimination. The accurate depiction of the case did not constitute error and is certainly not -- as the Defendant suggests -- a lone failure to provide WAV service. Judge Halpern then considers those two claimed errors to the extent the Defendant has raised them as infecting the more specific challenged findings and recommendations in the Report. First, the Defendant objects to Magistrate Judge Krause's legal analysis and ultimate conclusion concerning the Plaintiffs' constitutional standing to maintain the action, arguing that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the injury in fact and redressability requirements of standing. Judge Halpern finds that WDOMI has sufficiently demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, its constituents' plausible intention to use the Defendant's transportation service in the future. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Krause's finding that the Plaintiffs have established an injury in fact is adopted. Judge Halpern also finds that at least some of the specific relief requested by the Plaintiffs would be redressed by a favorable decision. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Krause's recommendation that the Plaintiffs have established redressability is adopted. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs have established Article III standing and the Defendant's request to enter judgment in its favor for lack of standing is denied. Having determined that Magistrate Judge Krause correctly found that the Plaintiffs have constitutional standing to maintain this action, Judge Halpern rejects the Defendant's contention that the Report recommends certification of classes that include individuals who lack constitutional standing. Because he has found that the Plaintiffs established standing, Judge Halpern holds that that is enough to confer standing on the entire class. Although modification of the recommended class definitions is not warranted for the reasons raised by the Defendant, Judge Halpern modifies the second and third class definitions to clarify that WDOMI does not assert claims under the NYSHRL. Second, the Defendant objects to Magistrate Judge Krause's findings concerning each of the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), including the implied requirement of ascertainability, and 23(b)(2). Judge Halpern adopts Magistrate Krause's recommendation that the Plaintiffs have established numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and ascertainability. He further adopts Magistrate Krause's recommendation that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) with respect to each of their proposed classes. Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant's objections to the Report are overruled, and Judge Halpern adopts the Report in its entirety, except with the modifications noted below to the recommended class definitions. Judge Halpern certifies the following three classes: a. All residents of or visitors to any and all regions serviced by Lyft, aside from Lyft's Access Regions or NYC, who require WAVs for vehicular transportation, and who are denied equal access to Lyft's transportation services (the Non-Access Region Class) (represented by Lowell and WDOMI and asserting claims under the ADA) b. All residents of or visitors to any and all regions serviced by Lyft in New York State aside from NYC who require WAVs for vehicular transportation, and who are denied equal access to Lyft's transportation services (the New York State Other Than NYC Class) (represented by Lowell asserting claims under the ADA and NYSHRL and WDOMI asserting claims under the ADA); and c. All residents of or visitors to Westchester County who require WAVs for vehicular transportation, and who are denied equal access to Lyft's transportation services (the Westchester Class) represented by Lowell asserting claims under the ADA and NYSHRL and WDOMI asserting claims under the ADA). Excluded from the classes are people who (1) have downloaded the Lyft app; (2) have brought separate litigation against Lyft for its failure to serve people with disabilities; and/or (3) are residents of Ohio State University or the University of Texas at Austin who do not leave those campuses. Judge Halpern appoints Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Morgan & Morgan, P.C., and Michael Hellman of ADA compliance specialists as the class counsel. A status conference has been scheduled for April 5, 2023, at 12:30 p.m. to be held by telephone to discuss the filing of revised pretrial submissions. At the time of the scheduled conference, all parties will call the following number: (888) 398-2342; access code 3456831. Judge Halpern grants the request to maintain under seal the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that were filed on Dec. 7, 2022. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions (Doc. 282; Doc. 328; Doc. 357). A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdz46dn6 from Leagle.com. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces Steamfitters Local Union Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Mallinckrodt PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2023, that in July 2019, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA), proceeding as "Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 v. Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC, et al." The complaint alleges the violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); conspiracy to violate RICO under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); violations of the Pennsylvania (and other states) Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection laws; negligent misrepresentation; aiding and abetting/conspiracy and unjust enrichment. The complaint also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. In December 2019, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss the complaint, and the matter was stayed during bankruptcy. Following lifting of the automatic stay of this litigation pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code and subsequent reopening of the case in the EDPA, in January 2021, the company moved to transfer this case to the District of Delaware where the company's Chapter 11 Cases are pending. Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 opposed transfer. On January 18, 2023, this matter was dismissed by the company. Mallinckrodt PLC is a global business of multiple wholly-owned subsidiaries based in Ireland. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Marrietta City Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2023, that in February 2020, the City of Marietta, Georgia filed a putative civil class action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia relating to the price of "Acthar Gel," a treatment for certain chronic inflammatory or autoimmune conditions. On February 17, 2023, this matter was dismissed by the company. The complaint, which pleads one claim for unjust enrichment, purports to be brought on behalf of third-party payers and their beneficiaries as well as people without insurance in the U.S. and its Territories who paid for Acthar Gel from four years prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of trial. The case is proceeding as the "City of Marietta v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC." Marietta alleges that it has paid $2.0 million to cover the cost of an Acthar Gel prescription of an employee and that the company has been unjustly enriched as a result. The company moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion was pending when the company filed the Chapter 11 Cases. On October 16, 2020, the court ordered the case administratively closed in light of the Chapter 11 Cases. As a result of the Plan, the litigation was discharged against the company and the claims thereunder are now the obligation of the trust established by the Plan for the benefit of allowed general unsecured claims (GUC Trust). The GUC Trust can settle the claims as long as there is no agreement to any findings nor any admission of liability or wrongdoing against the company in the relevant settlement agreement. Mallinckrodt PLC is a global business of multiple wholly-owned subsidiaries based in Ireland. MARICOPA, AZ: Houston Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Houston, v. County of Maricopa, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00875-SPL-MTM (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order that the Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted as to Counts Five and Seven, and the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Counts. -- Further, because the Plaintiff's federal causes of action fail as a matter of law and cannot be remedied by additional factual allegations, the Court will dismiss the Complaint and this action. -- The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. -- The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the action is dismissed without prejudice. -- The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is denied as moot. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, as well as punitive damages, for injuries allegedly arising from the publication of his mugshot and other information on the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) website. As such, the Plaintiff -- personally and on behalf of a putative class -- alleged the following claims for relief: Count One: Invasion of Privacy, False Light, and Violation of Arizona's Public Records Laws. Count Two: Violation of Article II, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution. Count Three: Negligent, Reckless, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Count Four: Violation of the Arizona Mugshot Act, Arizona Revised Statute. Count Five: Violation of Due Process, under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Arizona Constitution. Count Six: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; and Count Seven: Violation of the Sixth Amendment. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nhH2JF at no extra charge.[CC] MATT MARTORELLO: Duggan Seeks to Impound Class Cert Reply Exhibit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA DUGGAN, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, v. MATT MARTORELLO AND EVENTIDE CREDIT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-12277-JGD (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order impounding Exhibit 1 to her Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants have designated the settlement agreement that will be marked as Exhibit 1 as "Confidential," presumably because it references sensitive financial information. When she files her Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification, on March 16, 2023, the Plaintiff proposes to file a placeholder for Exhibit 1 viewable to the public, which will note that the settlement agreement is being filed under seal. Exhibit 1 will be submitted to the Court under seal upon allowance of this motion. According to the terms of the Protective Order, the Defendants will then have ten days to file a brief in support of maintaining the confidentiality of the exhibit. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K5xgmY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. John B. Scofield, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston TX 77007-1722 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com jbs@caddellchapman.com - and - John Roddy, Esq. Elizabeth Ryan, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 439-6730 Facsimile: (617) 951-3954 E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com eryan@baileyglasser.com MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Vancouver School Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VANCOUVER 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-01404 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 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, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco products, 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. By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State of Washington, have redirected significant resources to combat Defendants' alleged 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. The Vancouver School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Vancouver School District is a public school district organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington with its geographic boundaries located in Clark County. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, 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 MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed Coolant Seal Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHEN SNOWDY, ABRAHAM DEAN LIOU, DELL JONES, KELSEY CLIFFORD, RICHARD RAMDHANNY, and BRANDON WAISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC and MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG f/k/a DAIMLER AG, Case No. 3:23-cv-01681 (D.N.J., Mar. 24, 2023) is a lawsuit arising out of a defect that causes the electric motors in 2014-2017 Mercedes B-Class Electric Vehicles to degrade and abruptly fail, leaving the vehicle inoperable. According to the complaint, every B-Class EV has an Electric Drive Unit (EDU) consisting of three modules that are integrated and necessary for the vehicle to operate the motor, the electronics, and the gearbox. But, the drive shaft seal is defective in that it fails in its single task -- keeping the coolant away from the EDU components. Liquid coolant leaks around the drive shaft and into the EDU where the coolant causes corrosion of the electromechanical components such as the rotor, the rotor windings, and the bearings in the motor. This corrosion results in diminishing performance and eventual catastrophic failure of the EDU. The Degradation of the EDU as a result of the Coolant Seal Defect results in partial or total failure of the EDU with little or no warning to the driver. Once the EDU fails, the Class Vehicles have no more power, just as if the engine in a common gas-powered vehicle were to fail completely and suddenly, the suit asserts. Defendant Mercedes knew of the Coolant Seal Defect even before Tesla's 2014 SEC filing, because Mercedes had collaborated with Tesla on its electric motor technologies, including the EDU, since as early as 2007. Despite their knowledge of the Coolant Seal Defect before, during and after sales of the Class Vehicles, the Defendants never once disclosed the defect or the safety risk to consumers. The Defendants have never offered to repair the Coolant Seal Defect or otherwise compensate Class Members for their injuries resulting from the Coolant Seal Defect, says the suit. As a result of Mercedes' alleged misconduct, the Plaintiffs and other Class Members were harmed and suffered actual damages in the form of overpayment for their vehicles, diminished value, repairs and other expenses and damages related to the undisclosed Coolant Seal Defect which Defendants have failed to remedy or disclose, and exposure to undisclosed risks from a product known to the Defendants to be dangerously unreliable. In September 2014, Mr. Snowdy bought a new 2014 B-Class EV (VIN ending 1481) from a Mercedes-authorized dealership, Prestige Motors, in Paramus, New Jersey for $49,219. The vehicle came with a Monroney sticker that described the engine and other mechanical features of the vehicle, which he viewed before purchasing. Mercedes-Benz is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy Springs, Georgia that sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz brand.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com cbartlett@carellabyrne.com zjacobs@carellabyrne.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Scott Alan George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com sgeorge@seegerweiss.com MICHIGAN: Settlement Claim Forms Submission Due April 14 -------------------------------------------------------- Scott McClallen at The Center Square reports that Michiganders who believe they were falsely accused of fraud between 2013-15 for receiving unemployment insurance benefits should know two upcoming deadlines to join a $20 million class action settlement with the state of Michigan. The Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency blames an old computer system for wrongly accusing roughly 40,000 people of fraud. Those interested must submit the registration form that determines eligibility for an award from the compensation fund by April 5, 2023. They must submit claim forms, opt-outs, and objections to the settlement by April 14, 2023. More case deadlines and background to the Bauserman v. Unemployment Insurance Agency class action lawsuit are posted here. In January, the Michigan Court of Claims approved a $20 million class action settlement and established dates for the settlement process. The settlement follows a 2015 lawsuit filed on behalf of benefit claimants who experienced wrongful collection by Michigan after being erroneously found to have committed fraud through an auto-adjudication process in connection with receiving unemployment benefits from Oct. 1, 2013, to Aug. 31, 2015. "We urge anyone who believes they were affected by these circumstances to register to be considered part of the settlement," UIA Director Julia Dale said in a statement. "This settlement is one of the many reforms the agency is implementing to create a UIA that will be a national model for fair, fast and fraud-free service." Attorney General Dana Nessel urged residents to join the settlement. "I am hopeful that affected Michigan residents will take advantage of this opportunity to join in the class settlement," said Nessel. "While this settlement cannot undo the hardships these residents faced, it does secure the long overdue relief that they deserve." Eligible claimants may be entitled to an award from the Compensation Fund for their economic losses and they may also be eligible for an additional award of compensation for hardships related to the wrongful collection activity. Residents can visit UIAClassAction.com, call 1-833-438-5028, or email info@UIAClassAction.com to find out how to file a claim. Dale took over the UIA in late 2021, when she started overhauling the agency via a new computer system, a better claims system, and better customer service. She's the 11th director in about 10 years. [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: $45K Sanction Awarded to Seaman Against TSI ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, KATHERINE SEAMAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-2, et al., Defendants. CHRISTINA BIFULCO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-2, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 18-CV-1781 (PGG) (BCM), 18-CV-7692 (PGG) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for sanctions against Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc. Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for sanctions against Transworld Systems, Inc. (TSI). They seek $73,280 in attorneys' fees, $168 in costs, an adverse inference order, a preclusion order, and an order directing that certain facts be taken as established for purposes of this action, all as sanctions for TSI's six-month delay in disclosing that a TSI-affiliated witness suffered a stroke. During that period, the Plaintiffs incurred unnecessary costs and the witness' deposition was delayed. However, they ultimately conducted the deposition in time to use the resulting testimony in support of their class certification motion. Beginning in 2019, the Plaintiffs attempted to notice the deposition of an employee (the Employee) of TSI. The Employee was a member of TSI's "Affiant Team" who signed affidavits and provided testimony in debt collection cases brought in state courts around the nation, including in a state court action against one of the Plaintiffs named, Sandra Tabar. On May 18, 2020, TSI's counsel accepted service of a deposition subpoena for the Employee (the Subpoena) but on May 22, 2020, both TSI and the Employee -- jointly represented by TSI's counsel -- moved to quash the Subpoena or, in the alternative, for a protective order requiring that the deposition be conducted on written questions. On July 17, 2020, Judge Moses denied the motion, thereby authorizing the Plaintiffs to proceed with the Employee's deposition, with certain accommodations. On July 31, 2020, TSI and the Employee filed timely objections to the 7/17/20 Order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), but did not seek a stay pending the resolution of their objections. Thus, from July 17, 2020 onward, the Employee was obligated to comply with the Subpoena. On Aug. 3, 2020 -- three days after the objections were filed -- the Employee suffered a "severe medical event," later diagnosed as a stroke, which caused him to resign his employment with TSI. However, neither TSI nor the Employee disclosed these facts to the Plaintiffs, or to the Court, for more than six months. Instead, the parties continued litigating the pending objections. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the pending objections on Sept. 2, 2020. TSI and the Employee filed a reply brief on Sept. 9, 2020, but no mention was made of his more recent "severe medical event." Thereafter, the parties conducted at least some discussions concerning the scheduling of the remaining depositions, but no date was fixed for the deposition of the Employee and no updated disclosure was made concerning his medical condition or employment status. On Feb. 16, 2021, the District Judge overruled the objections to the 7/17/20 Order. Only then did TSI and the Employee, through their joint counsel, disclose that the Employee had suffered a stroke and was no longer employed by TSI. On March 26, 2021, the Employee -- now acting through separate counsel who appeared on his behalf that day -- filed a second protective order motion, based on the stroke, again seeking an order requiring that the deposition be conducted on written questions. Considering the Employee's new medical challenges, the Plaintiffs agreed, reluctantly, to conduct his deposition on written questions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 31. At the same time, they moved for both monetary and non-monetary sanctions, accusing TSI of delaying a key witness' deposition for over a year with the purpose and effect of the Plaintiffs' not ever being able to take the witness' testimony. TSI denied that charge but acknowledged that its delayed disclosure of the Employee's stroke and its consequences was intentional, because those facts were relevant only to the second protective order motion, which only became necessary after TSI's objections were overruled by the District Judge on Feb. 16, 2021. After a discovery conference on April 19, 2021, at which Judge Moses heard argument on both motions, she granted the second protective order motion to the extent of requiring that the Employee's deposition be conducted on written questions, pursuant to Rule 31, no later than May 19, 2021. She also granted the Plaintiffs' sanctions motion. In a written order issued on April 23, 2021, Judge Moses specified that sanctions were appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), and 28 U.S.C. Section 1927. However, Judge Moses denied the Plaintiffs' request for preclusion orders or other non-monetary sanctions, without prejudice to renewal after their counsel received the Employee's deposition transcript. The 4/23/21 Order continued, the renewed motion may be combined with the Plaintiffs' application for the attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a result of the disclosure failure, which is due at the same time. On May 7, 2021, TSI objected to the 4/23/21 Order pursuant to Rule 72(a). On May 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs took the Employee's deposition. On June 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion. By order dated Jan. 18, 2022, the District Judge agreed that TSI's conduct was sanctionable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927, and on that basis overruled, in relevant part, TSI's objections to the 4/23/21 Order. On March 29, 2022, plaintiffs filed their renewed motion, seeking a total of $73,290 in attorneys' fees, representing 123.6 hours of attorney time by three different lawyers at the firm of Frank LLP, at rates of $1,400 per hour for senior partner Marvin Frank, $1,100 per hour for partner Gregory Frank, and $500 per hour for associate Asher Hawkins, plus $168 in expenses. Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek a variety of non-monetary sanctions, all premised on the notion that the Employee's testimony would have been even more helpful to them had they been able to question him "timely," that is, before his stroke affected his memory for detail. They also request an order directing that various facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, ranging from the very specific to the extremely broad; and a preclusion order, which would bar TSI from calling the Employee as a witness or making any arguments to the effect that the Employee did review proof of the debts alleged before signing his affidavit in the Tabar case. TSI filed an opposition brief on April 12, 2022, arguing that no non-monetary sanctions should be imposed because its only sanctionable misconduct occurred after the Employee suffered a stroke. It adds that 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 does not allow for non-monetary sanctions and that the monetary sanctions requested are excessive. The Trust Defendants also filed an opposition brief, pointing out that the broad non-monetary sanctions sought would have the effect of ending the case not only against TSI, but against the Trusts, as well. The Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on April 19, 2022, defending their requested hourly rates and arguing that the non-monetary sanctions they seek may be imposed pursuant to the Court's inherent authority. They concede that TSI did not cause the Employee's stroke, but argue that it is nonetheless responsible for the Plaintiffs' inability to take his deposition before he had that stroke, because it delayed his deposition for more than a year by serially pressing unsuccessful and baseless motions for an order blocking the deposition. Based on the qualifications of the counsel, the nature of the legal work at issue, the range of rates awarded for comparable work in this District, and the actual award to Frank LLP in Toohey, Judge Moses finds that $450 per hour is a reasonable rate for M. Frank; $375 per hour is a reasonable rate for G. Frank; and $300 per hour is a reasonable rate for Hawkins. She therefore awards attorneys' fees as follows: Hawkins $300 (120.2) - $36,060; G. Frank $375 (14.2) - $5,325, and M. Frank $450 (7.8) - $3,510. The Grand Total is (142.2) - $44,895. In addition, she awards the requested $168 in expenses, incurred in ordering the transcript of the April 19, 2021, hearing. Lastly, Judge Moses holds that there is no legal, equitable, or logical basis on which to grant the Plaintiffs' request for adverse inference sanctions, preclusion orders, or orders deeming various facts established. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs are awarded $44,895 in attorneys' fees and $168 in costs, for a total award of $45,063, as against TSI and its counsel, jointly and severally. The sanction is to be paid within 30 days of the date of the Memorandum and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4krv7c73 from Leagle.com. NEW YORK, NY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Leslie Class Suit v. NYPD ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHAKIRA LESLIE and SHAMILL BURGOS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK; KEECHANT SEWELL, Police Commissioner for the City of New York, in her official capacity; KENNETH COREY, Chief of Department for the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity; JAMES ESSIG, Chief of Detectives for the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity; EMANUEL KATRANAKIS, Deputy Chief in the Forensic Investigations Division of the New York City Police Department, in his official capacity; and DR. JASON GRAHAM, Acting Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 22 Civ. 2305 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Named Plaintiffs Leslie and Burgos initiated the lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against defendants City of New York, New York Police Department ("NYPD") Commissioner Keechant Sewell, NYPD Chief of Department Kenneth Corey, NYPD Chief of Detectives James Essig, NYPD Deputy Chief of the Detectives Bureau and commanding officer of NYPD's Forensic Investigations Division Emanuel Katranakis, and Acting Medical Examiner for NYPD's Office of Chief Medical Examiner ("OCME") Jason Graham. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief stemming from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and New York Executive Law Article 49-B. Since the 1990s, federal and state governments have maintained a national system to facilitate DNA crime scene comparisons — known collectively as the Combined DNA Index System ("CODIS") -- which was created by, and is regulated through, federal and state law. CODIS is an umbrella system of DNA indexes: the National DNA Index System ("NDIS"), State DNA Index Systems ("SDIS"), and Local DNA Index Systems ("LDIS"). Initially enacted in 1994, Article 49-B of the Executive Law established New York's SDIS, authorized a regulatory structure for its operation, and provided certain restrictions on the establishment of DNA laboratories and the collection of New Yorkers' DNA. According to the allegations in the Complaint, NYPD officers are instructed to surreptitiously collect items used by suspects that are partially consumed and contain DNA, such as cigarettes, chewing gum, and beverage containers. After DNA samples are collected from suspects, they are sent to OCME, which analyzes them, creates a DNA profile of each suspect, and places those profiles in its own "Known" index (the "Suspect Index"). Once in the Suspect Index, the NYPD continuously compares each DNA profile to crime scene DNA samples. An individual's DNA can remain in the Suspect Index for years, even if charges are dismissed. The Plaintiffs allege that, unlike the state and federal DNA index systems described supra, the Suspect Index violates the Fourth Amendment and New York Executive Law Article 49-B. Specifically, according to them: (1) the City's practices of taking individuals' DNA, maintaining their DNA in its Suspect Index, and analyzing their DNA against crime scene evidence violate the Fourth Amendment; and (2) Article 49-B precludes localities like the City from maintaining a DNA index comprised of arrestees and mere suspects, as opposed to those convicted of felonies and criminal misdemeanors. The Plaintiffs filed suit on March 21, 2022, seeking: (1) permanent injunctive relief preventing defendants from "subjecting plaintiffs and the putative class to the unconstitutional and unlawful practices" described in the Complaint, and ordering defendants to expunge all DNA profiles in the Suspect Index; and (2) a declaration "that the City's practice of secretly taking, analyzing and maintaining peoples' DNA in its Suspect Index for comparison against crime scene evidence constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment absent a warrant or court order permitting the search." After the Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, the NYPD conducted an "expedited" review of the Plaintiffs' DNA profiles on the direction of counsel. On May 19, 2022, the NYPD removed the Plaintiffs' DNA profiles from the Suspect Index because of its "expedited review." The Defendants assert that, had review of the Plaintiffs' profiles not been expedited, the NYPD would have reviewed Leslie's profile in June 2022 and Burgos's profile in January 2023, and both profiles would have been recommended for removal. The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on July 15, 2022, along with a memorandum in support and associated declarations and exhibits. According to them, the Plaintiffs lacked standing when the Complaint was filed, and even assuming they had standing when they commenced the suit, their claims are now moot after the Defendants removed their DNA from the Suspect Index. In the alternative, the Defendants argue that the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claim brought pursuant to N.Y. Executive Law Article 49-B. The Plaintiffs opposed and filed a memorandum and declaration on Aug. 22, 2022 and the Defendants submitted a reply memorandum with an associated declaration on Sept. 2, 2022. The Court also accepted an amicus curiae brief from the Policing Project at New York University School of Law. In addition, on Jan. 20, 2023, the Court requested that the parties submit supplemental briefing on whether the doctrine of Pullman abstention applies to the case. The parties submitted their respective responses. The Defendants first seek dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the Plaintiffs lack standing under Article III. To satisfy Article III standing, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing: (1) that she has suffered an injury in fact -- an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Judge Buchwald concludes that the Plaintiffs have met their burden on each of the three necessary elements. First, the Plaintiffs have established an injury in fact because their DNA was included in the Suspect Index, where, as alleged, it was being compared against crime scene evidence. Second, the Plaintiffs' injury is traceable to the Defendants' conduct. Last, the Plaintiffs' injury is redressable by the Court. The Defendants next argue that the case has been mooted by their post-filing removal of the named Plaintiffs' DNA from the Suspect Index, which was done "on the direction of counsel." The Plaintiffs dispute the Defendants' position because of two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: the "inherently transitory" exception and the "voluntary cessation" exception. Judge Buchwald agrees with the Plaintiffs and concludes that the Defendants' post-filing actions did not moot the Plaintiffs' claims and instead triggered both exceptions. As the Plaintiffs' claims on behalf of the purported class are inherently transitory, the exception to the mootness doctrine is met. And, the Defendants cannot meet the "very heavy burden" required to establish that their voluntary removal of the Plaintiffs' DNA from the Suspect Index moots the case. In sum, the Plaintiffs meet both the "inherently transitory" and "voluntary cessation" exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Because the Plaintiffs have also established standing, the Defendants' 12(b)(1) motion must be denied. Judge Buchwald then turns to the remaining issues: whether the Court should abstain from this action entirely, and whether she should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claim under Article 49-B. After evaluating the parties' supplemental briefing on that question and the applicable case law, she concludes that the criteria for abstention are not met. It is inappropriate at this time to decide whether the Court must (or should) exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claim. Accordingly, Pullman abstention is not warranted in the case. The Defendants argue that the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claim under Article 49-B because the Plaintiffs' state law claim is not closely related to their Fourth Amendment claim, and the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law. Judge Buchwald notes that the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims are analytically independent of the statutory claim. Moreover, the resolution of the Fourth Amendment claims may impact the contours of the statutory claim. Accordingly, she reserves decision on the Defendants' argument that she should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claim under Article 49-B. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 45. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Corrected Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/56h4emwc from Leagle.com. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Team Ohio Seeks Appointment as Class Counsel -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD R. FEEZLE, SUSAN E. SCHEUFELE, DAVID J. SCHEUFELE, ROLLERENA AUTO SALES, LLC, and MARILYN FIGLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., and NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORP., Case No. 4:23-cv-00242-BYP (N.D. Ohio), Team Ohio requests the Court to appoint them to lead this local suit matter. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3), and in response to this Court's March 8, 2023 order, the Plaintiffs in Feezle and the other cases related to the February 3, 2023 Norfolk Southern train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio pending before this Court file this motion and memorandum in support regarding appointment of interim class counsel and a the Plaintiffs' leadership structure. Considering the sprawling and complex nature of this litigation, the Plaintiffs believe that appointment of interim class counsel and the leadership structure proposed below will best enable the parties -- both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants -- to move forward with this litigation in the most expeditious manner possible. The February 3, 2023 disaster has distracted the East Palestine community from counting its many, many blessings. But that will again be its custom. It is Team Ohio's calling to bring a remedy to East Palestine and the surrounding communities and put in the rearview the fiery train derailment and the unforgettable dark toxic mushroom cloud blooming during the "controlled release." Community members have placed signs that read: "We are East Palestine. Get ready for the Greatest Comeback in American history." Team Ohio too is ready, willing, experienced, and dedicated to being a part of East Palestine's historic comeback. The Feezle case was the first lawsuit filed following the East Palestine derailment. It was filed on February 7 by Shapero & Roloff and Amato Law Office in consultation with lawyers from Simmons Hanly Conroy. Jayne Conroy and other members of her firm appeared in the first amended complaint (filed on February 20) after being admitted pro hac vice. The February 3, 2023 Norfolk Southern train derailment and "controlled release" of toxic vinyl chloride and other chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio, is a uniquely local disaster. Had the train jumped the tracks seconds earlier—before the James Street or Market Street crossings -- the main thoroughfares of East Palestine would have gone up in flames. As it was, East Palestine residents were forcibly evacuated from their homes and businesses. Norfolk is a Class I freight railroad operating in the Eastern United States. A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FMaWvV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Sq., 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com - and - Ron R. Parry, Esq. STRAUSS TROY 150 E 4th Street #4 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621-2120 E-mail: rrparry@strausstroy.com - and - Nils P. Johnson, Jr., Esq. Nils Peter Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LAW OFFICE 12 West Main Street Canfield, OH 44406 Telephone: (330) 533-1921 E-mail: NilsPeter@JandJOhio.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Todd Naylor, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com - and - Calvin C. Fayard, Jr., Esq. D. Blayne Honeycutt, Esq. FAYARD & HONEYCUTT APC 519 Florida Ave SW Denham Springs, LA 70726 Telephone: (225) 664-0304 E-mail: dbhoneycutt@fayardlaw.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Mark Bryant, Esq. THE BRYANT LAW CENTER 601 Washington Street Paducah, Kentucky 42003 Telephone: (270) 908-0995 E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com - and - Elizabeth A. Bernard ELIZABETH A. BERNARD LLC 4137 Boardman-Canfield Road, Suite 105A Canfield, OH 44406 Telephone: (330) 286-0474 Facsimile: (330) 286-0477 NOVAVAX INC: Sinnathurai, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOTHINATHAN SINNATHURAI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NOVAVAX, INC., STANLEY C. ERCK, GREGORY F. COVINO, JOHN J. TRIZZINO, and GREGORY GLENN, Case No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC (D.Md.), the Lead Plaintiffs Jeffrey Gabbert, Nuggehalli Balmukund Nandkumar, and David Truong move the Court for an Order: 1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3); 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and 3. appointing Lead Counsel Labaton Sucharow LLP and Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Novavax is an American biotechnology company that develops vaccines to counter serious infectious diseases. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FZQZ4G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Brian Calandra, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com bcalandra@pomlaw.com - and - James W. Johnson, Esq. Michael H. Rogers, Esq. David J. Schwartz, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jjohnson@labaton.com mrogers@labaton.com dschwartz@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com - and - Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com - and - Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW FIRM 1800 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 692-8883 E-mail: esley@portnoylaw.com ONLY NATURAL: Tice Sues Lomacchios for Misappropriation of Assets ----------------------------------------------------------------- LOREN TICE, AS THE TRUSTEE OF THE RYAN LOMACCHIO TRUST CREATED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ROBERT LOMACCHIO, individually and on behalf of Only Natural Corporation, and all other shareholders similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THOMASINA LOMACCHIO, AND ANGELO LOMACCHIO, Defendants, Case No. 604933/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., March 24, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff as a shareholder of Only Natural Inc., on behalf of herself and all other shareholders of the Corporation, similarly situated and in the right of the Corporation, arising from the Defendants' violation of the New York Business Corporation Law. Angelo Lomacchio was and is a director and president of Only Natural Inc., and Thomasina LoMacchio was and is a director, and Treasurer of the Corporation. According to the complaint, Thomasina Lomacchio wrongfully, illegally, and feloniously defrauded, embezzled and stole funds of the Corporation by wrongfully issuing Corporation checks/debits/ACH transfers to American Express and to third parties to pay bills not for corporate purpose in excess of $500,000, with the exact amount to be determined at trial. The damages sustained by the plaintiff are as a result of the misappropriation of the Corporation's assets by defendant Thomasina LoMacchio were aided and abetted by Angelo LoMacchio's negligence, asserts the complaint. The negligence of defendant Angelo LoMacchio arose from his carelessly not supervising and reviewing the use of corporate funds for non-corporate purposes which Angelo knew or in the exercise of due care should have known that they were not in the furtherance of the corporate purposes of the Corporation, and that there was no reason for such checks, or other expenditures by the Corporation, and the failure of Angelo LoMacchio to require financial statements be issued to the shareholders and the Board of Directors of the Corporation by defendant Thomasina LoMacchio, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged conduct, Plaintiff has sustained damages in excess of $500,000 by virtue of the actions of Thomasina Lomacchio. Only Natural Inc. is a duly formed New York State corporation with a principal place of business in the County of Nassau.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven W. Stutman, Esq. STEVEN W. STUTMAN, PLLC 535 Broadhollow Road Suite B52 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 393-6001 OUTDOOR GEAR: All Class Cert Discovery Must be Completed by Oct. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Weekes Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. The Outdoor Gear Exchange, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01283-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramo entered a civil case discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Joinder of additional parties must be accomplished by April 14, 2023. -- Amended pleadings may be filed until April 14, 2023. -- Interrogatories shall be served no later than April 28, 2023 and responses thereto shall be served within 30 days thereafter. -- First request for production of documents, if any, shall be served no later than April 28, 2023. -- Non-expert depositions shall be completed by August 30, 2023. -- Any further interrogatories, including expert interrogatories, shall be served no later than September 15, 2023. -- Requests to Admit, if any, shall be served no later than April 28, 2023. -- Expert reports shall be served no later than August 30, 2023. -- Rebuttal expert reports shall be served no later than September 15, 2023. -- Expert depositions shall be completed by September 29, 2023. -- All discovery shall be completed by October 15, 2023. -- Any motions shall be filed in accordance with the Court's Individual Practices. -- This Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order may not be changed without leave of Court (or the assigned Magistrate Judge acting under a specific order of reference). -- The Magistrate Judge assigned to this case is the Hon. James L. Cott. Outdoor Gear Exchange is a retail company that provides camping gear, alpine, and backcountry skis. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZhpUAN at no extra charge.[CC] P.C. RICHARD: Douglass Suit Wins Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. P.C. RICHARD & SON, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00399-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen P. Kelly entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class for settlement purposes and for preliminary approval of class action settlement. -- The proposed Settlement Class is preliminarily certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement. -- The Settlement Class is defined as: "A national class of individuals who are Blind and/or who have a Visual Disability and who use Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to access, [https://www.pcrichard.com/] from the United States." -- The Court finds that Plaintiff Blair Douglass will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. As a result, the Court appoints and designates Mr. Douglass as representative of the Settlement Class. -- The Court finds that attorneys Kevin Tucker, Kevin Abramowicz, Chandler Steiger, and Stephanie Moore of East End Trial Group LLC are experienced and competent counsel who will continue to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. As a result, the Court appoints and designates attorneys Tucker, Abramowicz, Steiger, and Moore as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. P.C. Richard is a chain of private, family-owned appliance, television, electronics, and mattress stores in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kgglhl at no extra charge.[CC] PAYWARD INC: Singh Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics ------------------------------------------------------------- Jatinder Singh and Sandeep Singh, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Payward, Inc. d/b/a Kraken, Case No. 3:23-cv-01435-SK (N.D. Cal., Mar. 27, 2023) seeks to redress and curtail the Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs' sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, Kraken has created, collected, and stored thousands of "face templates" -- highly detailed geometric maps of the face -- from countless Illinois residents whose selfies and state-issued ID's were collected by Kraken. Each face template that Kraken extracts is unique to a particular individual in the same way that a fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies one, and only one, person. Kraken had no written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such biometric information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the individual's last interaction with Kraken, whichever occurs first, says the suit. Moreover, Kraken made no mention of biometric information, collection of biometric information, or storage of biometric information. Kraken collected, stored, and used Plaintiffs' biometric information without ever receiving a written release executed by the Plaintiffs which would consent to or authorize Kraken to do the same. Kraken has sold, leased, traded, or otherwise profited from Plaintiffs' biometric information, the suit claims. The Plaintiffs each opened Kraken accounts within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this action. As part of signing up, and/or gaining access to their Kraken accounts, the Plaintiffs were required to upload a picture of (1) a valid state-issued identification; and (2) a real time portrait of their face, i.e. a "selfie." Payward operates as an online, "app-based" platform wherein individuals can trade "crypto-currencies", crypto-currency derivatives, and other virtual commodities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leah M. Beligan, Esq. Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 300 Newport Beach, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 224-3881 E-mail: lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net jbeligan@bbclawyers.net - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza – Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com - and - Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com ROCKWELL COLLINS: Bid to Remand Alvarado Suit to State Court Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Israel Alvarado v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 23-400-JFW (JCx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to State Court. On Feb. 17, 2023, Alvarado filed a Motion to Remand Case to State Court. On Feb. 27, 2023, Defendants Rockwell Collins, Inc. ("RCI"), Aeronautical Radio, Inc., ARINC Inc. ("ARINC"), and Raytheon (CA) Technologies Corp. filed their Opposition. On March 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Reply. Judge Walter found the matter appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument. The matter was, therefore, removed from the Court's March 20, 2023, hearing calendar and the parties were given advance notice. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendants in the State of California from approximately April 2003 to September 2021. On Oct. 29, 2022, he, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, filed a Complaint against the Defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging one cause of action for unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., predicated on violations of the California Labor Code including: (1) the failure to pay minimum and overtime wages based on off-the-clock work and because of rounding; (2) failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages at the regular rate of pay; (3) failure to provide off-duty meal and rest periods and to pay meal and rest period premiums; (4) failure to reimburse business expenses; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failure to pay sick time at the regular rate of pay; and (7) failure to pay wages due at the time of separation. On Jan. 18, 2023, Removing Defendants RCI and ARINC removed the action, alleging that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). In support of their Notice of Removal, the Defendants estimated that the aggregate value of all matters in controversy amounted to more than $16 million, even under very conservative violation rates. In his Motion, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million necessary for CAFA jurisdiction. The Defendants contend that the evidence satisfies the amount in controversy requirement. In support of their Opposition, they provided supplemental evidence, to further substantiate the amount in controversy. The Plaintiff takes issue with the Defendants' estimate, claiming that is based on unsupported and unreasonable assumptions. Judge Walter has considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers and disagrees. He says the Defendants' estimates are premised on reasonable assumptions. For instance, with respect to their wage statement penalty calculations, the Defendants presumed a 100% violation rate. This presumption, according to Judge Walter, is reasonable given that the Plaintiff alleges that the wage statements failed to identify the accurate total hours worked each pay period and considering the other violations alleged in the Complaint. For these reasons, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to State Court is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwsy4kh from Leagle.com. ROMULUS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Swonger Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAKAYLA SWONGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ROMULUS, INC., and RMLS HOP OHIO, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01049-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 24, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio law. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain a policy and practice whereby servers are required, during their regular shifts, to perform non-tip producing "side work" unrelated to the servers' tipped occupation, as well as non-tip producing side work related to the servers' tipped occupation. While the Representative Plaintiff, the Putative Collective Members, and the Ohio Class Members were performing non-tip producing side work, the Defendants continued to pay Representative Plaintiff, the Putative Collective Members, and the Ohio Class Members less than minimum wage and relied on the tip credit to meet the Defendants' obligation to pay the Representative Plaintiff, the Putative Collective Members, and the Ohio Class Members minimum wage, says the suit. The Defendants were not eligible to avail themselves of the tipped minimum wage rate under the FLSA, because the Defendants required Representative Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members to perform a substantial amount of dual job duties and side work. During these periods, the Defendants compensated the Representative Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members at the tipped minimum wage rate rather than at the full hourly minimum wage rate as required by the FLSA, the suit further asserts. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at Defendants' Heath, Ohio location, within the last three years. Romulus owns and operates IHOP restaurants in Arizona, Idaho, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, New Mexico, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, and Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2944 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com SALVATION ARMY: Loses Bid to Junk Geiser Suit --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT GEISER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE SALVATION ARMY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01968-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court said, "The Defendant shall answer the Second Amended Complaint within 14 days in accordance with Rule 12(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40cezDo at no extra charge.[CC] SHAMROCK CABINET: Brandon, et al., Seek Approval of Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BRANDON MILLETT, WILLIAM MORGAN, and BRANDON MENDOZA, on behalf of themselves individually and all other similarly situated employees, v .SHAMROCK CABINET & FIXTURE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:21-cv-00635-GAF (W.D. Mo.), request that the Court issue the following relief in whole and without delay: (a) approval of the Settlement Agreement that will be provided in supplemental briefing; (b) certification and approval of the Rule 23 Class; (c) certification and approval of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class; and (d) approval of the notices of settlement that will be provided in supplemental briefing in advance of the April 27, 2023 hearing. In the underlying action, which the Plaintiffs initiated on September 2, 2021, the Plaintiffs allege, in part, that the Defendant violated the FLSA and Missouri's Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL") by failing to properly compensate its hourly, non-exempt employees for their hours worked, by failing to pay them minimum wage, and by failing to properly pay them overtime wages. Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant: (a) improperly rounded their time worked in a manner that systematically under-counted the employees' actual time worked; and (b) improperly deducted a 30-minute meal break from each shift, regardless of whether the break in question lasted for 30 minutes, and even when the employee did not take a meal break. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a collective of alleged similarly situated individuals pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. They also seek to represent these same individuals with respect to the MMWL claim asserted in the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective include the Defendants' nonexempt employees employed by the Defendant between September 2, 2018 and March 29, 2022. The main terms of the Settlement Agreement are as follows: -- Gross Settlement Amount of $1,250,000.00 for 201 class members -- Net Settlement Fund (to distribute to class members) of $875,000.00 -- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, including the costs of administration, of $375,000.00 -- $125.00 will be paid automatically to each of the Rule 23 Class members (201 individuals) without the need to file a claim or opt-into participation in the settlement in exchange for a release of the Plaintiffs' claim under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. In recognition of the service contributions of the Plaintiffs, they seek service awards of $10,000 for the Plaintiff Brandon Millett and $5,000 each for the Plaintiffs Brandon Mendoza and William Morgan. The remaining funds in the Net Settlement Fund ($829,875.00) will be distributed in two payments, six months apart, to the class members who opt to file a straightforward claim to effectuate a release of FLSA claims. Only such claimants will release FLSA claims. Shamrock Cabinet manufactures wooden home and commercial furniture. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3neuuCI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin A. Todd, Esq. Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1501 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 875-9339 E-mail: bthoenen@hkm.com jziegelmeyer@hkm.com ktodd@hkm.com SHANGHAI CAFE: Chen Is Entitled to Default Judgment, Court Says --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CINDY CHEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHANGHAI CAFE DELUXE, INC. d/b/a Shanghai Cafe; YILI WENG, PING LIN, and XINSHENG GU, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-2536 (VF) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants Chen's motion for default judgment. Chen brought the age-discrimination action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Defendants Shanghai Cafe, Yili Weng, Ping Lin, and Xinsheng Gu. Chen alleges that the Defendants unlawfully terminated her employment, because of her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 621 et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. Section 290, et seq. ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code, Section 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL"). Chen, a 54-year-old woman, was employed by Shanghai Cafe as a waitress from April 15, 2012, to Jan. 26, 2016. Shanghai Cafe is a New York State corporation, with 20 or more employees, located at 100 Mott Street in New York, New York. It is a restaurant that is "engaged in interstate commerce" with gross sales exceeding $500,000 per year. Throughout the relevant period, the owners and operators of Shanghai Cafe -- individual defendants Weng, Lin, and Gu -- supervised Chen and had the power to hire and fire employees of the restaurant. Chen was on vacation in China between Jan. 26, 2016, and March 8, 2016. Upon her return to the United States, she contacted Weng to let her know that she was ready to return to work. On March 12, 2016, another employee of the restaurant (also named Chen) called Chen to tell her that Weng, Lin, and Gu decided they only wanted young waitresses, and that Chen would not be able to return to work. The following day, March 13, Chen called the restaurant to ask if she had been added back to the work schedule. Weng told her that she was "busy" and would call her back that night. Weng did not call Chen back. Chen was later told by another waitress at Shanghai Cafe that Ling and Gu had said they "only want young waitstaff. On March 14, 2016, Chen was told by Weng that her employment was terminated. Chen filed her complaint, which she characterized as a putative class action, on April 9, 2017. In her complaint, she alleges that she filed a claim of discrimination with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission on June 24, 2016, and received a right to sue notice on March 10, 2017. Shanghai Cafe, Weng, Lin, and Gu filed an Answer on June 26, 2017. The parties engaged in discovery at the close of which the Defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all of Chen's claims. In an opinion and order dated March 8, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It dismissed sua sponte Chen's ADEA claims against the individual defendants, because the ADEA does not provide for individual liability. It also granted summary judgment to Lin, dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims against Lin. Additionally, it granted summary judgment to all Defendants on Chen's ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims, to the extent those claims relied on the alleged existence of discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. However, the Court denied summary judgment to the extent it sought dismissal of Chen's ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims based on discriminatory termination due to her age. And, it also denied summary judgment as to individual defendants Weng and Gu for Chen's claims of discriminatory termination under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. Consequently, following the Court's summary judgment decision, Lin was dismissed from the case; the Plaintiff's claims against Shanghai Cafe under the ADEA, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL for discriminatory termination remained in the case; and the Plaintiff's claims against Weng and Gu for discriminatory termination in violation of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL also remained. On Jan. 29, 2020, the counsel for Defendants, Michael K. Chong, moved to withdraw as counsel for all Defendants. On March 18, 2020, the Court granted Chong's motion to withdraw as counsel, and gave the Defendants 30 days to obtain new counsel. By July 20, 2020, the Defendants had not yet retained new counsel, and the Court instructed the Plaintiff that it could move for the entry of default judgment by Sept. 4, 2020. The Defendants were served with a copy of the Court's order on Aug. 13, 2020. The Clerk of Court issued a Certificate of Default for Shanghai Cafe and against the individual defendants on Sept. 18, 2020. On Sept. 18, 2020, Chen filed a motion for default judgment. On July 7, 2021, the Court denied without prejudice Chen's motion for default judgment. On Dec. 21, 2022, Chen renewed her motion for default judgment and for an award of damages, and also filed a motion for attorneys' fees. The Defendants were served with these filings on Dec. 22, 2022. To date, the Defendants have not filed any opposition to the motion for default judgment, motion for attorneys' fees, or Chen's damages submissions. They have also not taken any action, or otherwise appeared, since the entry of the Clerk's Certificate of Default in September 2020. Judge Figueredo holds that the Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment against Shanghai Cafe, Weng, and Gu, and to an award of back pay, liquidated, and emotional distress damages in the amount of $439,735.30. The Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of post-judgment interest, to be calculated from the date the Clerk of Court enters judgment in this action until the date of payment, using the federal rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $31,198.79, and costs in the amount of $400. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to calculate prejudgment interest on $232,367.65, which comprises the portion of the Plaintiff's award attributable to back pay and compensatory damages. Prejudgment interest should be calculated in the manner explained in pages 18-20 of the Opinion and Order, at the rate of interest referred to in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961. Finally, the Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of the Order on the Defendants and file proof of service of the same on the docket by no later than March 31, 2023. Accordingly, Chen is granted default judgment against Shanghai Cafe on her claims for violation of the ADEA, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. She is also granted default judgment against Weng and Gu for her claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. Additionally, judgment is entered against Shanghai Cafe, Weng, and Gu for damages and attorneys' fees in the amounts outlined. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycybbmbx from Leagle.com. ST. LOUIS, MO: Parties in Robertson Must File Dismissal Papers -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER ROBERTSON, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-01570-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge John A. Ross entered an order that, no later than 7 days following final approval of class certification in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, Case No. 4:19-cv-02590-CDP, the parties shall file dismissal papers with respect to the instant case. The Court said, "All activity and pending deadlines in this case are stayed until that time, and this case is administratively closed." The parties have notified the Court of a settlement in Street, et al. v. O'Toole, 4:19-cv-02590-CDP, pursuant to which the present case will be included in a class settlement, subject to approval by the Court in the primary case. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ni2Kxb at no extra charge.[CC] STANLEY BLACK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 23 ------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. ("Stanley" or the "Company") (NYSE: SWK) in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Stanley securities between October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until May 23, 2023 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) rising interest rates, inflation, and trends in returning to work away from home were in fact quickly eroding then-heightened demand for Stanley's tools and outdoor products; (ii) the heightened, extraordinary demand Stanley had enjoyed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 into 2022 was returning to 2019 pre-pandemic levels; (iii) Stanley's operations were already showing signs of slowing demand; (iv) as a result of reorganization, share repurchasing, and dividend growth, Stanley lacked the cash to react with agility to changes in demand; and (v) as a result of Stanley's inability to react to a sharp decline in demand, the Company's results and metrics, particularly sales volume, were severely negatively impacted. As a result of the foregoing, Stanley's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Stanley shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] STANLEY BLACK: Faces Rammohan Suit Over 16% Day-Over-Day Share Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------- NARESH VISSA RAMMOHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC., DONALD ALLAN, JR., JAMES M. LOREE, AND LEE MCCHESNEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00369 (D. Conn., Mar. 24, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Stanley common stock between October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly misrepresented to investors and the public that despite rising inflation and interest rates, and Stanley's multiple rounds of product price increases, that pandemic-fueled, heightened consumer demand for tools and outdoor products would be sustainable through 2022 due to continuing construction and do-it-yourself projects. The truth began to be revealed on April 28, 2022 when the Defendants issued a set of partial corrective disclosures stating that Stanley's Tools and Outdoor net sales had dropped in the Company's first fiscal quarter of 2022 to $4.4 billion, and that Stanley was accordingly revising its earnings per share guidance down for fiscal year 2022. On this news, Stanley stock fell 8.6% or $12.01 per share, from a close of $139.14 per share on April 27, 2022, to a close of $127.13 on April 28, 2022. However, Defendants continued to make false and misleading statements regarding the Company's deteriorating demand. The Defendants repeatedly mislead investors about the Company's core Tools and Outdoor segment, stating that the Tools and Outdoor sales decline was attributable to supply chain issues rather than falling demand. Defendant Allan also reassured investors that "the headline for the first quarter is that demand for our products remains healthy" and, in response to an analyst question, that there "is not an assumption that there's some significant slowdown related to overall demand," says the suit. On July 28, 2022, the truth was fully revealed when Stanley released its Q2 2022 results in a press release before stock markets opened for trading. In the press release, Defendant Allan stated that "significantly slower demand in late May and June drove the majority of the challenges we faced this quarter" and that "[a]s the softening of the demand environment accelerated rapidly during the last portion of the quarter … [w]e are now preparing for demand to normalize closer to 2019 levels for the remainder of 2022." Defendants also contemporaneously held an earnings call for investors and analysts the morning of July 28, 2022. Defendants revealed on the call that, due to a sharp slowdown in consumer demand for power tools in May through June 2022, sales volumes had in fact shrunk by double digits, the Company's net income for its second quarter had plunged to $87.6M compared to $459.5M in the year-earlier quarter, and that Stanley was cutting its 2022 earnings per share guidance by nearly half. Upon the news that demand had plummeted, that sales volumes had shrunk, and that Stanley was slashing its earnings guidance for 2022 by nearly half, Stanley's common stock, which had closed at $117.45 per share the evening prior, fell to a closing price of $98.58 per share on July 28, 2022 on heavy trading volume, representing over a 16% day-over-day drop, the suit further asserts. Plaintiff Naresh Vissa Rammohan purchased Stanley common stock during the Class Period. Stanley Black is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools, power tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial customers, as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq. Cole von Richthofen, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com gpotrepka@zlk.com cvrichthofen@zlk.com STATE FARM: Appeals Partial Dismissal Ruling in Varela Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 13, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled Yasmin Varela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 0:22-cv-00970-JRT-ECW, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff Varela, on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly insureds in Minnesota who received a payment for the loss of a totaled vehicle from the Defendant, filed this suit on April 15, 2022 against State Farm, alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Ms. Varela's claims stem from an alleged illegal practice whereby State Farm reduces the contractual amount it owes insureds to take a "typical negotiation" deduction when an insured is involved in an accident and State Farm declares their vehicle a total loss and pays out the actual cash value minus any deductible for the loss. On July 7, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case which the Court granted in part and denied in part through an Order entered by Judge John R. Tunheim on Feb. 13, 2023. Judge Tunheim held that because Varela's breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment claims are foreclosed by the No-Fault Act's mandatory arbitration provision, the Court granted State Farm's motion to dismiss these claims. The Court also dismissed the declaratory and injunctive relief claims as redundant. However, because Varela has alleged sufficient facts to support her claim for violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and such claim is not limited by the No-Fault Act or the insurance policy's one-year time period provision, the Court denied State Farm's motion as to this claim. The appellate case is captioned as Yasmin Varela v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 23-1516, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 17, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before April 26, 2023; -- Appendix is due on May 8, 2023; -- BRIEF APPELLANT, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is due on May 8, 2023; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Defendant-Appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is represented by: Douglas R. Boettge, Esq. Kelly Maxwell, Esq. Todd Noteboom, Esq. STINSON, LLP 50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335-7252 Plaintiff-Appellee Yasmin Varela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Walfred Asp, Esq. Eura Chang, Esq. Karen Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL 100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Business: (612) 339-6900 - and - James B. Finley, Esq. FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 200 13th Street Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (706) 322-6226 - and - R. Brent Irby, Esq. IRBY LAW, LLC 2201 Arlington Avenue, S. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 335-9102 - and - Paul James Phelps, Esq. THOMAS J. LYONS & ASSOCIATES 342 E. County Road D Little Canada, MN 55117-0000 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 STURM & RUGER: Jones Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 5, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01233 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order on Pretrial Deadlines: -- All discovery as to class May 5, 2024 certification shall be concluded by: -- The Plaintiffs shall move June 5, 2024 for class certification by: -- The Defendants' opposition to July 10, 2024 the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in July 24, 2024 support shall be due by: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property Damages. Ruger s an American firearm manufacturing company based in Southport, Connecticut, with production facilities also in Newport, New Hampshire; Mayodan, North Carolina; and Prescott, Arizona.[CC] SUEZ WTS: Bulnes Must File Bid for Class Certification by August 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN BULNES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. SUEZ WTS SERVICES USA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01154-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered an order granting joint motion to continue scheduling order deadlines as follows: 1. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class discovery must be completed by June 5, 2023. 2. The Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification by August 4, 2023. 3. Within three days of a ruling on the motion for class certification, the parties must jointly contact the Court via email (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) to arrange a further case management conference. Suez WTS produces and markets a variety of specialty chemical products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lHRIk7 at no extra charge.[CC] SVB FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges SVB Financial Group (NASDAQ: SIVB) investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: June 16, 2021-Mar. 10, 2023 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 12, 2023 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SIVB Contact An Attorney Now: SIVB@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 SVB Financial Group (SIVB) Securities Fraud Class Action: While Hagens Berman believes more facts will be developed, the complaint which starts the clock on when investors must move to be a lead plaintiff alleges Defendants made misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) SVB faced a high risk of insolvency in the wake of the Federal Reserve's commencement in 2021 of ongoing interest rate increases; (2) SVB would be worse off in this environment than banks that did not cater to tech-startups and venture capital-backed companies; and (3) SVB's investments were negatively affected by rising interest rates, making it particularly susceptible to a bank run. Investors began to learn the truth on Mar. 8, 2023, when SVB revealed that it sold substantially all of its available for sale-securities portfolio that resulted in an after-tax loss of approximately $1.38 billion in Q1 and plans to offer $1.25 billion of stock and $500 million of preferred depositary shares. Then, on Mar. 9, 2023, the Wall Street Journal and others reported that SVB's disastrous securities portfolio sales were "directly related to the surge in interest rates over the past year" and "the company's $21 billion portfolio had a yield of 1.79% and a duration of 3.6 years" while "[t]oday, the 3-year US Treasury note yields 4.7%, a far cry from the levels at which the bank bought the Treasury notes prior to 2022." These events sent the price of SVB shares crashing $161.79, or 60%, lower on Mar. 9, 2023, wiping out over $9.5 billion of shareholder value in a single day. Then, on Mar. 10, 2023, SVB's wholly owned subsidiary Silicon Valley Bank was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as receiver. The previously announced equity offerings were terminated. "We're focused on whether SVB hid known risks from investors, and if so recovering as much as possible on their behalf from any bad actors, including those who sold on inside information," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in SVB and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding SVB should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email SIVB@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law. The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] TRIP MATE: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Rivard Class Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FRANCIS RIVARD, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant v. TRIP MATE, INC.; UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 22-1554 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the order of the District Court dismissing Rivard's complaint, holding that the existence of an enforceable contract between the parties foreclosed the unjust enrichment claim. Rivard filed a putative class action, claiming that insurance plan administrator Trip Mate and insurer U.S. Fire were unjustly enriched when they retained a portion of Rivard's travel insurance premium after his trip was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rivard purchased a 15-day trip for himself and his wife to Scotland and Ireland to take place in May 2020. In addition to the $9,234 he paid for the trip, he also paid a $598 premium to Trip Mate for a travel protection plan. The travel protection plan had three parts: Part A covered pre-departure cancellation and was underwritten by the tour company; Part B protected against post-departure issues, like lost luggage, missed connections, and medical emergencies, and was underwritten by U.S. Fire; and Part C included non-insurance services, like concierge assistance, and was underwritten by various third parties. The tour company cancelled the trip due to the COVID-19 pandemic and reimbursed Rivard for a portion of his trip cost. Rivard then filed a claim with Trip Mate, and in accordance with the terms of the plan, he was reimbursed in travel vouchers for the remainder of his trip cost. He did not request or receive a reimbursement of any portion of the premium. Rivard, as a representative of other similarly situated insurance policyholders, brought the putative class action seeking the return of the portion of the premium associated with the post-departure coverage under Part B of the travel protection plan. He alleges that under well-settled insurance law, an insurer must return a premium when the insurer is not at risk of covering the insured peril. Because his trip was cancelled, Rivard claims that U.S. Fire faced no risk that it would need to provide post-departure coverage and so the retention of his full premium constituted unjust enrichment. The District Court dismissed Rivard's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It held that Rivard's claim was foreclosed by the existence of an enforceable contract governing the same subject matter as the unjust enrichment claim. Rivard timely appealed. Rivard argues that the contract at issue does not foreclose the unjust enrichment claim because (1) it does not address unearned premiums or partial refunds of unearned premiums and (2) even if it did, the contract cannot be relied upon because the relevant portion of the contract is not enforceable. The Third Circuit disagrees. First, it opines that the subject matter of the contract is the insurer-insured relationship with respect to the May 2020 trip. Via his unjust enrichment claim, Rivard seeks a refund of a portion of the premium paid to insure the trip. That claim undoubtedly falls within the insurer-insured relationship, even if the contract does not include an express provision with respect to unearned premiums. Put another way, as long as the contract is enforceable, the existence of a contract covering the same subject matter as the unjust enrichment claim forecloses that claim altogether. Second, the contract was take-it-or-leave-it: Rivard did not have the option to purchase certain parts of the contract and not others. It is also undisputed that Rivard assented to all parts of the contract at the same time. The nature and circumstances of the contract, therefore, demonstrate that it is not divisible. Given that the contract is not severable, any failure of consideration as to Part B is inconsequential and the contract remains enforceable. The existence of an enforceable contract on the same subject matter as Rivard's unjust enrichment claim forecloses that claim altogether. The District Court, therefore, properly dismissed the complaint. For these reasons, the order of the District Court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3nhjhfta from Leagle.com. TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Court Allows Bid to Seal & Impound Documents -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bruckno v. Tufts University, Case No. 1:20-cv-11940 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Rya W. Zobel entered an order allowing motion to seal and impound certain documents associated with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Tufts University is a private research university in Medford and Somerville, Massachusetts.[CC] UNITED NATURAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Class: Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired United Natural Foods, Inc. (NYSE: UNFI) securities between March 10, 2021 and March 7, 2023, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. United Natural Foods is a distributor of natural, organic, specialty, produce and conventional grocery and non-food products. What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against United Natural Foods. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers by May 19, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. What is this Case About: United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI) Made False and Misleading Statements Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, on March 8, 2023, United Natural Foods announced its second quarter 2023 financial results, revealing a $6 million decline in gross profits, despite a 6% increase in net sales. The Company stated that its profits "were challenged as we did not repeat the significant level of procurement gains from rapidly accelerating inflation and inventory gains, due to supply chain volatility, that we experienced in the second quarter of last year." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $11.49, or 28.1%, to close at $29.47 per share on March 8, 2023, injuring investors. During the class period, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, despite its cost saving Value Path initiative, United Natural Foods had not invested in improving its data management and related infrastructure; (2) that, as a result, the Company could not respond adequately to cost changes, such as inflationary pressure; (3) that, as a result, the Company could not appreciate the benefits of procurement gains and inventory gains achieved during fiscal 2022; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's profitability would be materially adversely impacted.[GN] UNITED STATES: Bid to Stay Initial Discovery Deadlines Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SILVIA GUEVARA ENRIQUEZ, et al, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-00097-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order denying without prejudice motion to stay. Accordingly, the motion to stay is to allow the Parties sufficient time to confer and meet the initial scheduling deadlines, however, the Court hereby extends the deadlines set forth in its February 16 Order as follows: -- April 17: FRCP 26(f) conference -- May 3: Initial disclosures -- May 13: Joint status report and discovery plan The Court has considered the competing interests in the case, including the failure of the Defendants to show that the initial scheduling deadlines would be burdensome to meet (as opposed to general discovery itself) and the Plaintiffs' allegation of continuing and ongoing harm from the Defendants' delay (which forms the basis of the Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendants), and finds that a stay is not warranted at this time. This is a putative class action asserting unreasonable delays in the processing of certain U.S. immigration applications. This matter is before the Court on the Defendants U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services' ("USCIS") and Ur M. Jaddou's, the Director of USCIS, motion to stay initial discovery deadlines (the "Motion to Stay"). Having considered the relevant record, the Court denies the motion to stay but extends the initial scheduling deadlines by 30 days. The Plaintiffs are a putative class of individuals who allege that the Defendants have unreasonably delayed the processing of their applications for a provisional waiver (Form I-601A) in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. On January 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was fully briefed as of March 9. A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K49IP8 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Campaign to Censor Online Speech ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children's Health Defense (CHD) et al., filed a class action lawsuit against President Joe Biden and numerous other federal agents and agencies in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division. The complaint alleges that the defendants have colluded with, encouraged and pressured social media companies to suppress speech that the government does not want the public to hear and to silence specific speakers who are critical of federal policy, per a CHD press release. This class action, brought on behalf of all Americans who access the news from social media platforms, seeks nationwide injunctive relief on behalf of those Americans, the release said. Instead of seeking monetary damages, the claim asks the court to declare that the Defendants' conduct violates the First Amendment and to prohibit them from engaging in any form of social media censorship in the future. The release said the complaint calls the government's campaign to censor online speech one of "the gravest threats to free speech this country has ever faced." "Because of the historically unprecedented power wielded by a handful of behemoth social-media companies over the content of American public discourse, the federal government's systematic campaign to induce these companies to censor speech is among the gravest threats to free speech this country has ever faced. . . . Since 2020, an army of federal officers, at every level of the government—from the White House itself to the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the CDC, the Office of the Surgeon General, and numerous less-well-known federal entities—has been engaged in the effort to induce those companies to censor constitutionally protected speech," per the release. "U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said, 'Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.' It also violates the constitution," CHD Chairman and Chief Litigation Counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said in the release. "The collaboration between the White House and health and intelligence agency bureaucrats to silence criticism of presidential policies is an assault on the most fundamental foundation stone of American Democracy." "The most serious threat to free speech of our time—and probably one of the most serious in the nation's history—is the federal government's massive, concerted and extraordinarily successful effort to get social media companies to censor ideas and information the government doesn't want people to see, say or hear," said Jed Rubenfeld, co-counsel for Plaintiffs, in the release. "This lawsuit challenges that censorship campaign, and we hope to bring it to an end. The real victim is the public, which is why we've brought this suit as a class action on behalf of everyone who accesses news from social media." CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland said in the release, "If Government can censor its critics, there is no atrocity it cannot commit. The public has been deprived of truthful, life-and-death information over the last three years; this lawsuit aims to have government censorship end, as it must, because it is unlawful under our constitution." Representing the Plaintiffs in addition to Mr. Rubenfeld is Louisiana Attorney G. Shelly Maturin, II, the release said.[GN] UNIVERSAL CITY: Woulfe, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONOR WOULFE and PETER MICHAEL ROSZA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00459-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), (b)(3) and (c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. Certifying a California Class, defined as: "All persons who purchased in California any tickets for theater viewership, or who rented or purchased physical or electronic copies of the movie Yesterday within California, within the applicable statute o limitations, for personal use until the date Notice is disseminated;" 2. Certifying a Maryland Class, defined as: "All persons who purchased in Maryland any tickets for theater viewership, or who rented or purchased physical or electronic copies of the movie Yesterday within California, within the applicable statute of limitations, for personal use until the date Notice is disseminated;" 3. Appointing Conor Woulfe as Class Representative for the California Class; 4. Appointing Peter Michael Rosza as Class Representative for the Maryland Class; and 5. Appointing Lejeune Law, P.C., Pequignot + Myers and Sheehan & Associates, P.C. as Class Counsel. Excluded from each Class are (a) the Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors, or assigns of any of the foregoing; (b) all judges presiding in this case and their chambers staff; and (c) all counsel of record in this case. Universal City operates as an entertainment company. The Company produces and distributes motion pictures and television programs. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JE8Dfu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody R. Lejeune, Esq. LEJEUNE LAW, P.C. 445 S. Figueroa St Ste 3100 Los Angeles CA 90071 Telephone: (985) 713-4964 E-mail: cody@lejeunelawfirm.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd, Suite 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 2340-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Matthew A. Pequignot, Esq. PEQUIGNOT + MYERS 2585 Ala Namahana Pkwy #1007 Kilauea HI 96754 Telephone: (202) 328-1200 E-mail: mpequignot@pmiplaw.com VALERY JOSEPH: Velazquez Sues Over General Workers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Fernando Vernaza Velazquez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in this proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Valery Joseph Salon, LTD., Valery Joseph @ BNYC, Inc., Valery Joseph @ Bridgehampton, Inc., and Valery Joseph, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02525 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2023) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, Defendants willfully violated the federal and state laws by knowingly and intentionally failing to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages; failing to furnish to Plaintiffs at the time of hiring, or whenever their rate(s) of pay changed, with a wage notice containing the rate or rates of pay and basis thereof; and failing to provide Plaintiffs with a statement listing each of the dates of work covered by the payment of wages. Plaintiff Velazquez was employed as a general worker from May 2016 to March 23, 2023 at Defendants' hair salons, known as "Valery Joseph Salon," located in New York. Valery Joseph Salon, Ltd. owns, operates and controls hair salons in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Mizrahi, Esq. Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com WALMART INC: Kochar False Ad Suit Transferred to E.D. Ark. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHIPRA KOCHAR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02343, was removed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on March 24, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00290-BSM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this proposed consumer class action individually and on behalf of all other members of the Class, who purchased for use and not resale any of Defendant's tainted baby foods. The Defendant's wrongful marketing and advertising, which includes misleading, deceptive, unfair, and false claims and omissions, allowed it to capitalize on, and reap enormous profits from, consumers who paid the purchase price or a price premium for baby foods that were not sold as advertised. The Defendant continues to wrongfully induce consumers to purchase its baby foods that are not as advertised, says the Plaintiff. Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolin K. Shining, Esq. Jennifer Michelle Leinbach, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. Jessica Behmanesh, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wislhire Blvd 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 - and - Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq. UMHOFER, MITCHELL & KING LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (213) 394-7979 - and - Melissa Weiner, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S, Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 - and - Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wislhire Blvd 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Defendant Walmart Inc., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Dale Joseph Giali, Esq. Peter Hsiao, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 - and - Ethan Price Davis, Esq. KING & SPALDING 50 California Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 318-1228 E-mail: edavis@kslaw.com - and - Livia M. Kiser, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 764-6911 E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com WAN FU YUAN: Class Cert. Opening Brief Set for April 14 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chien v. Wan Fu Yuan, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-05527-ES-JSA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs propose the following briefing schedule as follows: -- Opening Brief April 14, 2023 -- Defendants' Opposition April 28, 2023 -- Plaintiffs' Reply May 5, 2023 In this motion, the Plaintiffs expect to seek the following relief: 1. Conditional certification of this action as a representative collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), on behalf of all employees employed by Defendants within the last three years ("Prospective FLSA Collective"); 2. Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to the Prospective Plaintiffs including a consent form (opt-in) form as authorized by the FLSA; and 3. Approval of a FLSA notice of this action and consent form. The Plaintiff Chien worked from May 5, 2013, through on or about June 27, 2020, as a fry wok at Defendants restaurants. The Plaintiff Chien, worked during the period, from on or about May 5, 2013 to on or about June 30, 2018, regularly about sixty-nine and three quarter (69.75) hours per week. From on or about July 1, 2018 and on or about June 27, 2020, he regularly worked about 71 hours per week. More specifically, the Plaintiff Chien However, no matter how many hours did Plaintiff and other employees actually work and regardless of their titles, they were paid a compensation at a fixed rate throughout their employment at Defendants restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40LvLQj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC. 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com WASHINGTON COUNTY, AL: Wins Bid to Extend Time to Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lang, et al., v. Washington County, Alabama et al., Case No. (), the Hon. Judge 1:22-cv-00057 Jeffrey U. Beaverstock entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition.[CC] WFM PRIVATE: Stipulation & Revised Case Scheduling Order Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHOSHA KELLMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WFM PRIVATE LABEL, L.P., WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., and WHOLE FOODS MARKET DISTRIBUTION, INC. Case No. 3:17-cv-06584-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order revising case schedule as follows: Case Event Existing Proposed Date Date Class Certification opening Mar. 21, 2023 Apr. 28, 2023 expert reports Class Certification rebuttal Apr. 14, 2023 May 12, 2023 expert reports Class Certification expert May 3, 2023 June 2, 2023 depositions Motions for class May 18, 2023 June 9, 2023 certification Oppositions to motions for June 15, 2023 July 14, 2023 class certification Replies to motions for July 7, 2023 Aug. 11, 2023 class certification A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZolYhV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. The Defendant is represented by: Brian R. Blackman, Esq. J.T. Wells Blaxter, Esq. David P. Adams, Esq. BLAXTER | BLACKMAN LLP WILLIAMS-SONOMA: April 11 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM RUSHING and ELIZABETH PERLIN, individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a Delaware corporation, also d/b/a Williams-Sonoma, and Williams-Sonoma Home, Pottery Barn, PB Teen, and PB Dorm, Pottery Barn Kids, Pottery Barn Baby, and West Elm; WILLIAMS-SONOMA DTC, INC., a California corporation; WILLIAMS- SONOMA ADVERTISING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to extend briefing schedule for the plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Last day to file opposition Mar. 28, 2023 Apr. 11, 2023 to Motion for Class Certification Deadline for the Defendants to Apr. 13, 2023 Apr. 27, 2023 produce class certification expert(s) for deposition Last day to filed reply May 29, 2023 June 12, 2023 in support of Motion for Class Certification Hearing Jun. 14, 2023 TBD (August 2023 or later) On September 28, 2022, Perlin filed a Motion for Class Certification. On October 4, 2022, the Court set for the following briefing schedule for the Motion for Class Certification. Williams-Sonoma is an American publicly traded consumer retail company that sells kitchenware and home furnishings. A copy of the the Parties' motion dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40rK0cM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Ave Ste 2000, Seattle, Washington, WA98101 The Defendants are represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Robert J. Guite, Esq. Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq. Alyssa Sones, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com rguite@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com asones@sheppardmullin.com WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Must Produce Class Cert Experts by April 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01421 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting stipulation regarding class certification schedule: -- Responses due by: April 11, 2023 -- Defendants to produce class April 27, 2023 certification expert(s) for deposition by: -- Replies due by: June 12, 2023 -- Motion Hearing set for Aug. 16, 2023 The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud.[CC] WOOD GROUP: Iannotti Seeks Time Extension to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS IANNOTTI, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. WOOD GROUP MUSTANG, Case No. 3:20-cv-00958-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff files an unopposed motion to extend deadline for motion for class certification from March 16, 2023 to April 21, 2023. Wood Group serves the upstream oil and gas, refining and chemicals, pipeline, automation and control, and industrial markets. A copy of the the Plaintiff's dated March 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TCUzY8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa J. White, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com - and- Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and- Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com WYNN RESORTS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ferris Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wynn Resorts Limited, et al., filed an appeal from a district Court order dated March 1, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled JOHN V. FERRIS, et al. Plaintiffs v. WYNN RESORTS LIMITED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00479-APG-BNW, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas. This is a securities fraud class-action suit against Wynn Resorts, Stephen Wynn, and Company officers and board members. Wynn Resorts develops, owns, and operates resort casinos in Las Vegas, Macau, and Massachusetts. Stephen Wynn, the founder and former CEO and chairman of the board, resigned in 2018 after a Wall Street Journal article reported on allegations that he sexually assaulted and harassed several employees over the course of more than a decade. On the day of the article's publication, Company share prices dropped 10.12%. Lead plaintiffs John V. Ferris and JoAnn M. Ferris and named plaintiff Jeffrey Larsen allege that Company officers, board members, and other senior-level management knew about or recklessly disregarded the allegations of Wynn's misconduct and concealed them. The Plaintiffs allege that in concealing the misconduct, the Defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions as part of a scheme to defraud in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission. They also assert a control-person liability claim alleging that Wynn and certain other defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On July 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for certification of a class of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between March 28, 2016 and February 12, 2018 and were damaged thereby. They also request that they be appointed as class representatives, that Pomerantz LLP be designated as lead class counsel, and that Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd. be appointed as local/liaison counsel. Defendants Wynn Resorts and Matthew Maddox opposed, and the other defendants filed joinders to the opposition. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Andrew P. Gordon entered an order on March 1, 2023 granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class including: "All individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Wynn Resorts securities between March 28, 2016 and February 12, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest." The Judge further ordered that Pomerantz LLP be appointed as class counsel and Muehlbauer Law be appointed as local/liaison counsel. The appellate case is captioned as John Ferris, et al. v. Wynn Resorts Limited, et al., Case No. 23-80023, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 17, 2023.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners WYNN RESORTS LIMITED, et al., are represented by: Edward Hillenbrand, Esq. Michael John Shipley, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 555 S Flower Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 - and - Mark Charles Holscher, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 - and - Austin C. Norris, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 2049 Century Park, E, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 680-8184 - and - Michele D. Johnson, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - and - Colleen Carlton Smith, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 12670 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 523-5400 - and - Daniel R. McNutt, Esq. MCNUTT LAW FIRM, P.C. 625 S. 8th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 384-1170 - and - Dylan T. Ciciliano, Esq. Erika Pike Turner, Esq. GARMAN TURNER GORDON 7251 Amigo Street, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Telephone: (725) 777-3000 - and - James N. Kramer, Esq. Michael Todd Scott, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 - and - John P. Aldrich, Esq. ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD. 7866 West Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 853-5490 - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 - and - Abdrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq. MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD. 7915 West Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 330-4505 Plaintiffs-Respondents JOHN V. FERRIS and JOANN M. FERRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 3rd Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 YORK COUNTY, PA: Judge Rejects Class Status in Prisoners' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Enright at York Dispatch reports that a federal judge has once again blocked efforts by York County Prison inmates to have their lawsuit alleging civil rights violations by prison training contractor Corrections Special Applications Unit listed as a class action. Judge Jennifer Wilson upheld an earlier ruling by Judge Martin Carlson, saying the inmates' attorneys objections were not enough to overturn Carlson's decision. "The fact that Plaintiffs disagree with the outcome of this analysis is not a basis to decline to adopt the report and recommendation," Wilson wrote in her ruling. The inmate allegations stem from a March 2021 incident in which prison staff and representatives from a training contractor allegedly forced inmates to strip naked at gunpoint, march into the gymnasium and stand against the wall for hours without access to food or medical care. According to the lawsuit, inmates were also allegedly threatened with a mock execution in which staff were told to "lock, load and take aim" at them. One inmate reportedly had a panic attack. The lawsuit also alleges that C-SAU leader Joseph Garcia allegedly yanked the inmate off the ground by his handcuffs and told the inmate that if he continued to move or express fear, he would be shot in the head. A default judgment was already issued against C-SAU and Garcia for reportedly failing to respond to the lawsuit. York County, however, continues to contest the allegations. An attorney for the inmates said he was reviewing additional options. "Plaintiff's counsel are disappointed with the denial of class certification," attorney Alan Denenberg said. "We are reviewing all of our options, including a petition for review by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals." Matthew Clayberger, attorney for York County and York County Prison, declined comment due to ongoing litigation. In an email response, Garcia wrote: "I have no idea what you're even talking about. I and nobody that I know have told me anything." Garcia, in explaining his failure to respond, previously said that his organization wasn't served paperwork in the lawsuit. Inmates at York County Prison filed a lawsuit in December 2021 shortly after the county approved a two-year, $252,770 contract for "confidential training" with C-SAU, which has garnered controversy for its conduct. The county would later agree with C-SAU to end the contract months before it was up, while paying C-SAU an additional $43,500 for equipment. If it had been approved, certifying the lawsuit as class action would have broadened the pool of plaintiffs to any inmate jailed at the prison since C-SAU began their work. In his ruling earlier this year, Carlson found the inmates had not met the sufficient prerequisites. "The plaintiffs' proposed class includes individuals 'who will be incarcerated in York County Prison', meaning the injunctive relief would be prospective and thus there would not be a finite universe of potential class members," Carlson wrote. "Further there would be no objective criteria to apply to determine the class." Another ruling by Carlson earlier this year recommended the dismissal of one allegation against county officials only, which alleged that the county had violated inmates' 14th Amendment equal protection rights by contracting with C-SAU. Carlson found that entering into the contract itself did not in itself deprive inmates of their rights, nor did it qualify as "extreme behavior." That was then merged with another allegation that accuses all defendants of violating inmates' civil rights protections. However, an attempt by the defendants to have a count alleging conspiracy by York County, C-SAU and York County Prison to deprive inmates of their rights dismissed did not succeed. According to Allegheny County Jail Warden Orlando Harper, York was one of two Pennsylvania counties that recommended C-SAU in 2021. Allegheny County, however, subsequently barred its prison from contracting with C-SAU over concerns about the program and Garcia. Noelle Hanrahan, a private investigator hired by Allegheny County, called Garcia "the Bernie Madoff of correctional consultants" during an interview with The York Dispatch in 2021. Hanrahan's report included information about time Garcia spent in a British prison in the 1980s. "You couldn't have done an inquiry without running into problems," Hanrahan said in the 2021 interview. She added: "There were red flags on every single category that one would check in a background check." An earlier incarnation of C-SAU called the Corrections Special Operations Group was the subject of an investigation following the 2021 death of an inmate in a Charleston, South Carolina, jail. Although the two officers involved in that case were never criminally charged, they were fired. The jail system settled with the victim's family for $10 million.[GN] [^] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Speakers Named ---------------------------------------------------------------- Register now for the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! The in-person conference will be held at The Harmonie Club, New York City, on Monday, May 8, 2023. This year's event boasts of an All-Star lineup of speakers: * Michael P. Canty, Partner, Labaton Sucharow LLP * Neil Kornswiet, CEO, Optium Capital LLC * Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP * Edward E. Neiger, Esq., Co-Managing Partner, Ask LLP * Graham Newman, Partner, Chappell, Chappell & Newman * Bola Oyesanya, Managing Director and Private Banker, Citi Law Firm Group * Paige Richardson, Director of Operations, Milestone * Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP * Daniel Stefany, Associate, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP * Thomas R. Waskom, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Oyesanya is this year's conference chair. The value-packed event features special presentations from keynote speakers, live panel discussions with industry experts and networking with other professionals. This year's conference sponsors are: * Premier Sponsor: Citi * Major Sponsors: Baird Mandalas Brockstedt Bock Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A. * Patron Sponsors: Huntington * Advocate Sponsors: Atticus Battea Class Action Services Simpluris Interested in becoming a speaker in May? Contact: Bernard Toliver, CMP (240) 629-3300 ext. 149 E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com Visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. The conference is presented by Beard Group, Inc. ********* 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 ***