/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230413.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 13, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 75 Headlines 9FIVERS LLC: Amendola Files Suit in S.D. California ABA PROTECTION: Cael Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Lopez Class Action Tossed ADT SOLAR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 2, 2024 ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Extension of Class Cert Deadline Sought ALPINE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Enters Settlement in Shareholders' Class Suit APPLE INC: Court Modifies Class in Securities Litigation ASSURANCE IQ: Court Narrows Claims in Rogers Class Action BECTON & DICKINSON: Deposition Ruling Entered in IPAS Suit BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Bid Granted; Packer Case Dismissed BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Granted; Curbelo Case Dismissed BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Granted; Matthis Case Dismissed BROSNAN RISK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spence Suit Alleges CEREBRAL INC: Faces Breach Suit Affecting Millions of Patients CEREBRAL INC: Faces Doe Suit Over Disclosure of Medical Info to FB CLARKSVILLE, IN: ACLU Sues Over Renters' Rights Violations CONFLUENCE HEALTH: Faces New Class Suit Over Wrongful Termination CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: June 7 Settlement Hearing Set CRACKER BARREL: Bid for Certification in Gillespie Suit Partly OK'd DISH NETWORK: Dismissal of Jones Class Action Affirmed DISTRICT 5: Initial Conference Set for May 16 in Lopez Class Suit DIVERSIFIED ENERGY: Must Face Class Action Over Abandoned WV Wells DM COMMUNICATIONS: Simms Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours DOWNEY BREWING: Faces Lopez Suit Over Nonpayment of OT Wages E-TRADE SECURITIES: Court Stays Rupnow Class Action Until April 21 EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Benzene Class Action Ongoing in Connecticut ELITE RIM: Faces Cruz Suit Over Unpaid Wages of Laborers, Repairmen EVERGLADES COLLEGE: Asks to Put on Hold Suit After Proposed Deal FORD MOTOR: Bid to Sever Plaintiffs' Claims for Trial Tossed GEORGES MEDIA: Discloses Subscriber’s Personal Info, Li Suit Claims GOODRX HOLDINGS: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Patient's Info GOOGLE LLC: Apple's Bid to Dismiss California Crane Suit Granted HELEN HOMES: Contreras Seeks Proper OT Pay for Maintenance Staff HILTON WORLDWIDE: Appellate Cert. Ruling in Pension Suit Discussed HINDUJA GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle McCarthy Labor Suit for $392,700 HOAG MEMORIAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 9, 2024 JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lubinski Alleges KAHRS LAW: Sims Suit Tossed W/o Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiction KENNETH A. GUNDERMAN: May 9 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set KRAFT HEINZ: Bids to Dismiss Consolidated Shareholder Suit Granted L&K COFFEE: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $6.15-Mil. LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS: Brown Sues Over Data Privacy Violations LIRA OF NEW YORK: Tin Dismissed from Hernandez Suit MDL 2924: Show Cause Order Entered in Ranitidine Liability Suit MGM RESORTS: Bids for Dismissal of Price-Gouging Class Suit MILLER ENERGY: $7.6MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on June 12 MISSISSIPPI: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 14 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces New Antitrust Class Suit in Calif. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hubbard Sues Over Student-Athlete Payments NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Linebacker Patrick Suit May Lead to Class-Action NATIONAL GENERAL: Court Junks Snuffer Class Suit NATIONAL INCOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goppert Suit Alleges NAVY FEDERAL: Lopez Suit Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection Practices NCAA: Class Certification Opposition Due April 28 OVASCIENCE INC: June 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set PATRONSCAN INC: Norman Files Class Suit Over BIPA Violations PATTERN ENERGY: Lead Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid PORSCHE CARS: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 22 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection PRETTY WOMEN: Nine Exotic Dancers Join in Filing Labor Class Suit RICE DRILLING: J&R Passmore Loses Bid for Class Certification S.C. JOHNSON: Faces Garvey Suit Over Mislabeling of Seal Bags SAGILITY LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ankeny Suit Alleges SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses Redd-Oyedele Suit v. SCCOE SOUTH STATE: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 26 SPACE 86 CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galindo Suit Alleges ST LUKE'S UNIVERSITY: Jennings Sues Over Unfair Insurance Policy STERICYCLE INC: ISCO False Ads Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. STEWARD HEALTH: Doe Wiretapping Suit Removed to D. Mass. TOP GOLF: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Capistrano Suit Alleges TWITTER INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unpaid Overdue Bills TWITTER INC: Faces New Class Suit Over Employees' Firings UNITED AIRLINES: Class Cert. Discovery in Sambrano Due August 24 UNITED OF OMAHA: Nieves Loses Bid for Class Certification UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Class of Undergrads Certified in Ninivaggi UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Faces Suit Over COVID-19 Campus Lockdown USAA FEDERAL: Bulls, et al., Seek to Certify Class VETERANS SECURITY: Granberry Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation VOLKSWAGEN AG: Vandervilt Receives $1MM from Cypres Settlement Fund WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadline Stricken WEST THOMAS: Forrett First Amended Complaint Tossed WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by April 25 WTB LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Rodriguez et al. Suit Alleges WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Narrows Claims in Kirchner Class Suit [*] Clayton Utz Attorneys Discuss New Queensland Class Suit Regime [*] Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action Suit in Kansas Granted ********* 9FIVERS LLC: Amendola Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 9Fivers, LLC. The case is styled as Alexis Amendola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 9Fivers, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00603-DMS-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 5, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. 9five -- https://9five.com/ -- is a luxury eyewear brand that has taken the fashion world by storm with its exquisite designs and premium materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com ABA PROTECTION: Cael Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed ABA Protection Inc., et al. The case is styled as Clay Cael, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated and the general public v. ABA Protection Inc., Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23605645 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 5, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." ABA Protection -- https://www.abaprotection.com/ -- is a privately owned security firm licensed to operate in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Lopez Class Action Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCIO LOPEZ, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Lopez v. Abbott Laboratories, Case No. 3:22-cv-00421-L-DDL (S.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss: The Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring claims on behalf of non-California putative class members who purchased the Defendant's products outside California and whose claims are asserted under the laws of other states. The Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts under Rules 8(a)(2) and 9(b). Beyond these requirements, "the pleadings need not identify any particular legal theory under which recovery is sought." The Plaintiff alleges violation of California Unfair Competition Law, (UCL); violation of California False Advertising Law, (FAL); violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; unjust enrichment/restitution; negligent misrepresentation; fraud; and fraudulent misrepresentation. She alleges California statutory violations on behalf of a putative subclass of California consumers. The remaining claims are alleged on behalf of a putative nationwide class of consumers, including California subclass. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution or other monetary equitable relief, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GkjLxc at no extra charge.[CC] ADT SOLAR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 2, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLO MCCRARY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ADT SOLAR LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02364-EFM-KGG (D. Kan.), Hon. Judge Kenneth G. Gale entered an initial scheduling order as follows: -- Plaintiff's settlement proposal: July 28, 2023 -- Defendant’s settlement counter-proposal: August 25, 2023 -- Jointly filed mediation notice, or September 1, 2023 confidential settlement reports to Magistrate Judge: -- Motions to amend: May 5, 2023 -- Mediation completed: October 6, 2023 -- Class Certification: February 2, 2024 The Plaintiff brings this putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff brings claims under Sections 27(b) and (c) of the TCPA on behalf of herself and the putative classes. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated Section 227(b) by placing prerecorded telemarketing calls without first obtaining the recipients’ prior express written consent. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated Section 227(c) and the section’s corresponding regulations by placing telemarketing calls to persons whose numbers were on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and who requested that Defendant not call them, but Defendant continued to call. ADT provides solar panel and battery installation services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KKTRFD at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Extension of Class Cert Deadline Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA SHANNON and ROSA PALACIOS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00448-LY-ML (W.D. Tex.), the Parties File joint motion to extend class certification-related deadlines as follows: Event Current Proposed Revised Deadline Deadline The Plaintiffs' class Mar. 8, 2023 May 12, 2023 certification expert designations served: The Plaintiffs' class Apr. 7, 2023 Jun. 12, 2023 certification motion filed: AIC's class certification Jun 7, 2023 Aug. 14, 2023 expert designations served: AIC's opposition to class Jul 7, 2023 Sept. 15, 2023 certification filed: The Plaintiffs' reply in Sept. 15, 2023 Nov. 21, 2023 support of class certification filed: Allstate is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook, since 1967. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3miXoBs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Davis, Esq. Michael L. Slack, Esq. SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP 6001 Bold Ruler Way, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 795-8686 Facsimile: (512) 795-8787 E-mail: jdavis@slackdavis.com mslack@slackdavis.com - and - Joe K. Longley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOE K. LONGLEY 3305 Northland Dr. Suite 500 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: 512-477-4444 Facsimile: 512-477-4470 E-mail: joe@joelongley.com - and - Roger N. Heller, Esq. Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. Jall H. Dafa, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com kbyrd@lchb.com jdafa@lchb.com The Defendant is represented by: Amy L. Ruhland (Rudd), Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500 Austin, TX 78701-3799 Telephone: (512) 457-7220 Facsimile: (512) 721-2220 E-mail: Amy.Ruhland@us.dlapiper.com - and - Michael P. O'Day, Esq. Willliam W. Reichart III, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) The Marbury Building 6225 Smith Avenue Baltimore, MD 21209-3600 Telephone: (410) 580-3000 Facsimile: (410) 580-3001 E-mail: Michael.Oday@us.dlapiper.com Wes.Reichart@us.dlapiper.com ALPINE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS CRUZ, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. ALPINE CONSTRUCTION & RENOVATION CORP. and ANTHONY MARCELINO GRACE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02748 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Plaintiff Cruz was employed as construction worker by Alpine Construction & Renovation at its offices at 4215 Peters Place Bronx, NY from June 5, 1999, until Nov. 10, 2021. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the wages he was owed for the amount of hours he had worked and failed to post the statutorily required wage and hour posters. Among other things, the Defendants also failed to provide accurate accompanying wage statements and/or annual pay notices. Alpine Construction & Renovation is duly organized New York Corporation with its principal place of business located at 4215 Peters Place Bronx, NY. The company is mainly engaged in landscaping and in the construction industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Enters Settlement in Shareholders' Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rational Expectations of Seeking Alpha reports that AMC has entered into a potential settlement with class action plaintiffs to allow APE units to convert into AMC shares, adding a material sweetener for AMC stockholders. The judge has not yet approved the agreement, which offers slightly improved terms to AMC shareholders over APE unitholders. If the settlement holds, then AMC shares should trade at approximately an 8% premium to APE units prior to conversion (depending on the exact number of APE units issued). AMC remains hard and expensive to borrow, but there may be remaining arbitrage opportunity into conversion, though AMC stock has historically not traded 'rationally'. AMC preferred (APE) units may now convert into AMC (NYSE:AMC) shares as a settlement has been agreed to the pending class action. However, the judge must approve the settlement and the settlement is slightly dilutive to APE holders. Whereas previously the conversion was effectively 1-to-1, with the settlement which gives additional shares to legacy AMC shareholders (1 extra share for every 7.5 AMC shares held) the conversion factor is approximately 1.08 AMC shares to 1 APE unit, depending on exactly how many APE units have been issued at the time of conversion and assuming the legal settlement holds. Movie theaters were basically shut down during COVID-19 and then, as if to make things worse for AMC, the rise of streaming services as an alternative to movie theaters' first-run rights hit demand further. Other theater companies have gone bankrupt. This hostile environment leads to AMC issuing significant equity and debt to remain solvent. As this dilution continued, AMC was ultimately prevented by shareholders from issuing the additional shares which it arguably needed to maintain liquidity and potentially pay down debt. AMC then creatively issued preferred APE units in late summer 2022 as a way to sell what were intended to be as close to AMC shares as possible, but without shareholder approval, and then planned to convert those APE units into AMC shares after a vote, which was easier to win because the new created APE units could vote too, and would disproportionately benefit from conversion. AMC's vote on March 14, 2023 allowed for conversion but was pre-emptively blocked by a class action. Now, AMC has a "binding settlement term sheet" with the plaintiffs which should allow conversion, though it needs to be approved by the judge. This is a very close to an arbitrage in the literal sense, because APE units should become AMC shares (albeit at a slight discount) if things proceed as AMC planned. APEs will cease to exist and unitholders will become AMC shareholders, if all goes to plan. However, there remains a large spread between AMC shares and APE units, even based on after-hours pricing on 4/3/2023. As I wrote previously, the trade is not costless as implied options premia, AMC borrow costs, and short squeeze risks all make the trade less attractive and more expensive than it initially appears. Still, the trade is worth monitoring, because we have two assets that now appear likely to converge, and yet trade at quite different prices. To be clear, AMC shares should now trade at a slight premium of around 8% to APE units if the conversion occurs in short order on the settlement terms because of the settlement sweetener that gives AMC holders extra shares, but absolutely not at more double the current price in my view. Fundamental Value - Not Much Still, regardless of what has been very interesting and creative financial engineering, we should remember that the equity value of AMC may be zero. Let's take a very rosy $300M of pre-COVID best-case EBIT for AMC and assume AMC can get back to that. Well, even if they do meet that EBIT goal, $4.5B of debt with a 7% interest rate means that the company is still losing cash ($315M of interest expense vs. $300M of EBIT). Next, bear in mind that my EBIT number is an imagined and arguably best-case scenario, whereas the interest expense is a cold, hard fact and could rise further in the environment of dramatically rising interest rates over recent months. Therefore, when considering the arbitrage, we must bear in mind that AMC shares may ultimately be worth zero. That's not to say the company is worthless in enterprise value terms, it isn't, it just means that all the value is potentially held by the debtholders given the high leverage on April 4, 2023. There's arguably no value left beyond that for shareholders. Of course, I'm not saying AMC will go bankrupt in short order. Indeed, issuing even more shares at above their intrinsic worth may help get AMC out of its current troubles to some degree, but we should not necessarily expect APE units and AMC shares to 'meet in the middle' of their current prices over the medium-term since leverage is so high. Remember, if the class action settlement holds, that involves even more incremental dilution with no real improvement to the business or capital structure. You have to really believe that AMC will execute exceptionally well to see equity value here. I remain skeptical. It is fascinating to see AMC shares trading at $4/share after-hours given the potential settlement when APE units trade at $1.80/unit. In theory, if the settlement proceeds as planned, these prices should trade much closer, with AMC at around an 8% premium to APE. The vote has taken place, so the main risk now is whether the judge approves the so-called settlement term sheet, assuming both parties stick to its terms. Therefore, if you can short 1 share of AMC and long ~0.93 units of APE without paying an implied $2.20 of total costs (in terms of option premia or borrow cost) before closing and hold the trade at a size where margin calls won't force you to close the trade prematurely, you may well make money. The question of course is if the market will offer that after April 4, 2023's news. For now, the spread between APE units and AMC appears excessively high, but over recent months borrow costs and options premia have been extremely elevated too. That creates the illusion of a juicy spread, but not necessarily a profitable trade once all costs and risks are considered. Risks AMC shares have historically not traded in a way that I would consider rational. This could happen again. Even if we think we know the 'end state' value of APE units and AMC shares, the interim values could end up at any value, and similar to other meme stocks, have historically seen wild volatility arguably divorced from business fundamentals and more driven by technical trading factors. AMC borrow costs are very high, as are option premia/implied volatility. This means that even if APE units and AMC shares were to converge, you may not necessarily make money on a convergence trade after all costs. Also, options are unavailable on APE units. AMC may have zero equity value given its debt load, this is a factor in constructing a trade to capitalize on the AMC/APE spread over the medium term. If the settlement holds, a well-specified arbitrage now requires slightly fewer APE shares for every AMC share held. The trading impact of that is uncertain. The AMC/APE convergence trade appears to have risks associated with the vote removed after March 14, now risks associated from the class action appear to have reduced. That said, the settlement appears to offer a greater share of the economic value to AMC shareholders at the expense of APE unitholders meaning the trade is no longer 1-to-1. Nonetheless, with such a wide spread and apparently low risk, there may be money to be made on convergence even taking account of elevated borrow cost and high implied volatility. It is important to factor in those elevated costs before placing any trade, as is having sufficient liquidity to manage any interim short-squeeze. Still, we may finally be close to the end of the months-long AMC/APE saga. [GN] APPLE INC: Court Modifies Class in Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: APPLE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-02033-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order modifying the class to include the following bolded language: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Apple Inc., including purchasers of Apple Inc. call options and sellers of Apple Inc. put options, during the period from November 2, 2018 through January 2, 2019, inclusive, and who suffered damages by the defendants' alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act;" Excluded from the class are (i) Apple and the individual Defendants; (ii) members of the families of each individual Defendant; (iii) officers and directors of Apple; and (iv) the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party. The Court finds that plaintiff has provided an adequate method of calculating damages for options holders. In its Class Cert. Order, the Court expressed concern that the proposed model did not have a method to account for variations in options. Feinstein's report suggested the Black Scholes model could be used but did not provide further detail. Plaintiff has now presented a common methodology for determining damages for the various options at issue here. On February 4, 2022, the N.D. Cal. Court granted in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court certified the class but for the inclusion of option holders. The Court denied certification in that regard without prejudice. The Court found plaintiff failed to provide a method of determining damages on a class-wide basis and did not reach the additional question of whether the options trade in an efficient market such that options holders are entitled to the Basic presumption of reliance. On April 15, 2022, plaintiff filed a supplemental motion to certify options investors as part of the class addressing those topics the Court raised. Having reviewed the parties' briefings and expert reports, the Court grants the motion. Apple is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZUUBMs at no extra charge.[CC] ASSURANCE IQ: Court Narrows Claims in Rogers Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH ROGERS, DEBRA JONES STEVENSON, FRANK GARRIDO, TAYLOR ARMIGER, and GWENDOLYN THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ASSURANCE IQ, LLC and BOOMSOURCING, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00823-TL (W.D. Wash.), Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss: -- The Court grants the motions to dismiss in part with leave to amend and denies them in part. Should Plaintiffs choose to amend, their third amended complaint must be filed within 30 days of this Order. -- Though the relevance of this allegation as currently pleaded is questionable, the Court is not inclined to strike it at this time given Boomsourcing's failure to show prejudice due to its inclusion and because Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their complaint. -- As for the class allegations, the Court shall reserve ruling on their propriety pending a potential motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs Joseph Rogers, Debra Jones Stevenson, Frank Garrido, Taylor Armiger, and Gwendolyn Thompson filed this putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), after having allegedly received illegal telemarketing calls for Assurance IQ's insurance services from Boomsourcing and another vendor. The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in June 2021 and filed the operative complaint (Second Amended Complaint) in April 2022. Each plaintiff alleges receiving, without consent, pre-recorded telemarketing calls from insurance company Assurance IQ on their cellphones or residential landlines between late 2020 and mid-2021. The Plaintiffs Rogers and Thompson also allege that they received these calls from Assurance IQ despite having their numbers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry (the DNC list). The Plaintiffs seek to represent two nationwide classes. Their proposed Robocall Class includes all persons within the United States who received a pre-recorded voice telemarketing call from Assurance IQ (or a third party acting on Assurance IQ's behalf) to their residential or cellular telephone numbers in the four years preceding the complaint "after obtaining the telephone number from the same source from which it obtained Plaintiff's phone numbers." Their proposed National Do Not Call Registry Class includes all persons within the United States who received more than one telemarketing call within a twelve-month period from Assurance IQ (or a third party acting on Assurance IQ's behalf) in the four years preceding the complaint "after obtaining the telephone number from the same source from which it obtained Plaintiff's phone numbers" even though their telephone numbers had been on the DNC list for at least thirty-one days. Assurance IQ provides software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40JYzsR at no extra charge.[CC] BECTON & DICKINSON: Deposition Ruling Entered in IPAS Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDUSTRIENS PENSIONSFORSIKRING A/S, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY and THOMAS E. POLEN, Case No. 2:20-cv-02155-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor entered an order governing procedure for remote depositions for class certification proceedings: 1. The Depositions in this Action for purposes of the Parties' Class Certification filings may be taken remotely if the Party noticing the deposition and the deponent agree that the deposition shall be taken by remote means. Any notice for a deposition to be taken remotely shall reflect that agreement. Any deposition taken remotely will use videoconference technology. 2. All remote deposition(s) shall be video recorded. Each person physically attending a remote deposition shall be visible to all other participants, their statements shall be audible to all participants, and they should strive to ensure their environment is free from noise and distractions. 3. The Parties agree that the Rules of this Court govern remote deposition(s), including the conduct of counsel and the deponent. 4. The Parties agree to confer in good faith regarding the start time for depositions. 5. The Party that noticed the deposition shall be responsible for engaging a service provider to provide court reporting, videoconference, and remote deposition services. Becton & Dickinson is an American multinational medical technology company that manufactures and sells medical devices, instrument systems, and reagents. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40LxUvs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068-1739 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com - and - Sharan Nirmul, Esq. David A. Bocian, Esq. Joshua E. D’Ancona, Esq. Vanessa M. Milan, Esq. Nathaniel C. Simon, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com dbocian@ktmc.com jdancona@ktmc.com vmilan@ktmc.com nsimon@ktmc.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew A. Sklar, Esq. Omar A. Bareentto, Esq. Four Gateway Center, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 100 Mulberry St. Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 622-4444 Facsimile: (973) 624-7070 E-mail: msklar@mccarter.com obareentto@mccarter.com - and - James P. Smith III, Esq. Matthew L. DiRisio, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 294-6700 Facsimile: (212) 294-4700 E-mail: jpsmith@winston.com mdirisio@winston.com BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Bid Granted; Packer Case Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PATRICK PACKER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (5), Civil Action No. 17-4077 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook, and their motion for summary judgment; and b. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an onshore and offshore cleanup worker. He represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: rashes, dermatitis, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, and headaches. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After his case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his June 21, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if some of the frequently reported health complaints are indeed from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. At issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation evidence. To prove that exposure to the chemicals in oil and dispersants can cause the medical conditions the Plaintiff alleges, he offers the testimony of an environmental toxicologist, Dr. Cook. Dr. Cook asserts that his report is based on the scientific methods used in the field of environmental toxicology. More specifically, he states that his causation analysis regarding health effects of oil spill exposures draws on the process of evaluating epidemiology studies and the work from established expert groups similar to the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee to make a more likely than not conclusion. Based on Dr. Cook's report, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff is unable to prove general causation with relevant and reliable expert testimony. They contend that Dr. Cook's general causation report is unreliable because he fails to: (1) identify the harmful dose of exposure of any particular chemical to which the Plaintiff was exposed that is necessary to cause his conditions; (2) identify which chemicals can cause which conditions; (3) verify the Plaintiff's diagnoses; and (4) follow the accepted methodology for analyzing epidemiology. They also note that the Court and others in this district have excluded various versions of Dr. Cook's report for similar reasons, including the version at issue in the case. Judge Vance finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. The Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in this case, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. He asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived him of data which would quantitatively establish his exposure. Judge Vance finds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies. First, his contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against defendants, his claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In light of the foregoing, Judge Vance dismisses the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/4a98vrvf from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Granted; Curbelo Case Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IVAN PEREZ CURBELO v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (1), Civil Action No. 17-3690 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook, and their motion for summary judgment; and b. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an onshore and offshore cleanup worker. He represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: earache, sore throat, bronchitis, pharyngitis, acute and chronic sinusitis, acute and chronic rhinitis, cough, nasal congestion, burning in nasal passages, decreased sense of smell, nasal discharge, chest pain, renal cyst, abdominal pain, heartburn, decrease in appetite, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, nausea, reactive airway disease, wheezing, shortness of breath, depression and anxiety, chronic chemically induced conjunctivitis, tearing of the eyes, itching of the eyes, hypersensitivity dermatitis, boils, chronic headaches, insomnia, fatigue, arthralgia, and myalgias. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After his case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his June 21, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if some of the frequently reported health complaints are indeed from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. They also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. At issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation evidence. To prove that exposure to the chemicals in oil and dispersants can cause the medical conditions the Plaintiff alleges, he offers the testimony of an environmental toxicologist, Dr. Cook. Dr. Cook asserts that his report is based on the scientific methods used in the field of environmental toxicology. More specifically, he states that his causation analysis regarding health effects of oil spill exposures draws on the process of evaluating epidemiology studies and the work from established expert groups similar to the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee to make a more likely than not conclusion. Based on Dr. Cook's report, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff is unable to prove general causation with relevant and reliable expert testimony. They contend that Dr. Cook's general causation report is unreliable because he fails to: (1) identify the harmful dose of exposure of any particular chemical to which the Plaintiff was exposed that is necessary to cause his conditions; (2) identify which chemicals can cause which conditions; (3) verify the Plaintiff's diagnoses; and (4) follow the accepted methodology for analyzing epidemiology. They also note that the Court and others in this district have excluded various versions of Dr. Cook's report for similar reasons, including the version at issue in the case. Judge Vance finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. The Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in this case, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. He asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived him of data which would quantitatively establish his exposure. Judge Vance finds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies. First, his contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against defendants, his claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In light of the foregoing, Judge Vance dismisses the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3k9rm5 from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Granted; Matthis Case Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHAWNA ELISIE MATTHIS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (1), Civil Action No. 17-3550 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook, and their motion for summary judgment; and b. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from her work as an onshore cleanup worker. She represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: acute asthma, shortness of breath, exacerbation of pre-existing asthma, cough, allergic rhinitis, pharyngitis, upper respiratory infection, laryngitis, acute bronchitis, nasal congestion, sore throat, acute sinusitis, decreased sense of smell, facial pain, sinus pain, nosebleed, throat irritation, gastritis, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain/cramps, diarrhea, dermatitis, cellulitis, boils, crusting, dryness/flaking, inflammation, redness, swelling, itching, lesions, peeling, scaling, welts, headache, migraine, dizziness, anxiety, gait problems, speech difficulty, decreased vision, eye pain, blurred vision, diplopia, acute conjunctivitis, joint swelling, and fainting. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. Her case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After her case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in her complaint, she offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his June 21, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if some of the frequently reported health complaints are indeed from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. They also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry her burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. She contends that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. At issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation evidence. To prove that exposure to the chemicals in oil and dispersants can cause the medical conditions the Plaintiff alleges, she offers the testimony of an environmental toxicologist, Dr. Cook. Dr. Cook asserts that his report is based on the scientific methods used in the field of environmental toxicology. More specifically, he states that his causation analysis regarding health effects of oil spill exposures draws on the process of evaluating epidemiology studies and the work from established expert groups similar to the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee to make a more likely than not conclusion. Based on Dr. Cook's report, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff is unable to prove general causation with relevant and reliable expert testimony. They contend that Dr. Cook's general causation report is unreliable because he fails to: (1) identify the harmful dose of exposure of any particular chemical to which the Plaintiff was exposed that is necessary to cause the Plaintiff's conditions; (2) identify which chemicals can cause which conditions; (3) verify the Plaintiff's diagnoses; and (4) follow the accepted methodology for analyzing epidemiology. They also note that the Court and others in this district have excluded various versions of Dr. Cook's report for similar reasons, including the version at issue in the present case. Judge Vance finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. The Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet her burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in the case, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. The Plaintiff asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived plaintiff of data which would quantitatively establish her exposure. The Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies, Judge Vance finds. First, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of her claims against defendants, her claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/4962h4ts from Leagle.com. BROSNAN RISK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spence Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KAREEM SPENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANTS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 651698/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., April 4, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Spence was employed by the Defendant as a security guard. BROSNAN RISK CONSULTANTS LTD. is a security services company. The Company provides security services for people, property, and assets through risk mitigation strategies and technologies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810, New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com CEREBRAL INC: Faces Breach Suit Affecting Millions of Patients -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Mental health platform Cerebral put "profits over people" by installing covert tracking technologies on its website and app and then sharing its users' private mental health data with Facebook, Google and Tik Tok, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Jane Doe filed the class action lawsuit against Cerebral Inc. on March 23 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal privacy laws. Cerebral is a tele-therapy and medication management company purportedly focused on helping people suffering with insomnia, anxiety and depression, among other mental health issues, the plaintiff states. According to the lawsuit, Cerebral installed certain tracking technologies on its platforms in order to intercept and to send its users' private information to third parties such as Meta Platforms and Google without their informed consent, so that they might be targeted with ads. "Despite the stigmas that unfortunately are so often associated with mental health issues and treatments, Cerebral intentionally chose to put its profits over the privacy of its Users, which number several million," the lawsuit states. Despite representing that it keeps its users' mental health data confidential, Cerebral recently publicly acknowledged that it has been using invisible trackers from Google, Facebook, TikTok and other third parties on its online services since Oct. 12, 2019, the lawsuit states. "Cerebral did not publicly acknowledge its collection and dissemination of its Users' Private Information until March 6, 2023 when it finally posted a notice on its Website." The information that is allegedly illegally sent to these third parties -- which includes name, social security number, lab results, referrals and emotional characteristics -- can be associated with other information to create "very fulsome user profiles" that can be mined for marketing and other commercial purposes, the lawsuit states. For example, in the case of information sent by Cerebral to Facebook, it was then linked to the plaintiff's unique Facebook user ID, so that there was no anonymity, she alleges. The plaintiff is suing for violations of California privacy and business law, branch of federal privacy laws and breach of contract. She's looking to represent anyone in the United States whose private information was disclosed by Cerebral to a third party without authorization or consent. She is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial, as well as an order preventing Cerebral from doing the alleged data sharing practice. Data breach healthcare victims may have their personal information compromised, along with valuable insurance and medical data, putting them at risk. This has happened multiple times around the country, with more attacks occurring each year. The plaintiff is represented by Graham B. LippSmith, MaryBeth LippSmith and Jaclyn L. Anderson of Lippsmith LLP and David S. Almeida of Almeida Law Group LLC. The Cerebral Inc class action lawsuit is Jane Doe, et al. v. Cerebral Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02190 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] CEREBRAL INC: Faces Doe Suit Over Disclosure of Medical Info to FB ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN DOE I and JOHN DOE II, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CEREBRAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. CGC-23-605585 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 3, 2023) is a consumer-privacy class action brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other California customers of the Defendant, a remote telehealth company that provides access to mental health resources, whose individually identifying information and information regarding their medical history, mental and physical condition, and treatment (Medical Information) was disclosed or transmitted to Meta or any other unauthorized third party. The Plaintiffs allege that, completely unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class Members, the Medical Information that they communicated to Defendant through its website while attempting to access mental health treatments was intercepted by and/or disclosed to at least one unauthorized third-party - Meta (formerly known as Facebook). The complaint seeks restitution, disgorgement of profits, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The complaint also seeks class certification pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this case be assigned to the Complex Litigation Department. The action is provisionally complex pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.400(c)(6) because Plaintiff seeks class certification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. This action will involve substantial pre-trial motions, including a motion for class certification, potential motion for summary judgment and/or other dispositive motions and affirmative defenses. This action will also involve extensive discovery including a substantial number of depositions of the Defendant's Person Most Knowledgeable corporate representatives, corporate officers, managers, and policy -- making personnel, and other witnesses with knowledge of the Defendant's policies and activities relevant to the putative class. Cerebral provides health care software solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ulian Hammond, Esq. Adrian Barnes, Esq. Ari Cherniak, Esq. Polina Brandler, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1201 Pacific Ave, 6th Fl Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com jhammond@hammondlawpc.com abarnes@hammondlawpc.com acherniak@hammondlawpc.com CLARKSVILLE, IN: ACLU Sues Over Renters' Rights Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Aprile Rickert of Louisville Public Media reports that the ACLU recently filed a class action lawsuit in federal court on behalf of a Clarksville resident, alleging the town's new rental inspection program violates his and other renters' Fourth Amendment rights. The Clarksville Town Council approved an ordinance creating the program last spring, with implementation set to start early this year. It requires all owners to register each residential rental unit annually to be inspected every three years by either the Clarksville Building Commissioner's office or a third party, depending on the rental unit type. According to the town's website, the inspections include checking electrical systems, plumbing, smoke detectors and overall building structure to make sure those are up to code. The town ordinance also requires owners to immediately notify the Building Commissioner's office of any hazardous conditions including fire, flood, sewage backup or interruption of electrical or water service for four or more hours. The ordinance references Indiana code, which allows for governments to create rental inspection programs. "This program is going to be a great tool which we can use in service of the town's rental population," Building Commissioner Rick Barr said in a news release in fall. "We need to make sure these properties are maintained for safety reasons." It's not clear if the town has performed any inspections yet. But an attorney with the ACLU representing renter Gary Carpenter argued in the recent lawsuit that to do so without first getting a warrant from a court or judicial order would violate renters' Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects against the government conducting searches and seizures of homes, schools, cars or individuals that are deemed unreasonable according to the law. "Under the Ordinance, Mr. Carpenter's home — and hundreds or thousands like it in the town — is subject to mandatory inspection by Town officials at least once every three years, and more often if a re-inspection is necessary or if the town had reason to believe or receives a complaint that his home does not comply with all applicable code requirements," according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit says Carpenter does not consent to such a search, and that, "Without a warrant or some other judicial or quasi-judicial order, there is no legal justification for the town's entry into or inspection of his home or of the homes of any other renter in the Town." It states Carpenter lives in a home that, according to the new program, would require inspection by town staff rather than a third party. The town ordinance creating the program also includes that inspections may be done more often than every three years, if the enforcement authority has reason to believe there is noncompliance with applicable codes or receives a complaint stating so. The lawsuit asks the court to block the town from enforcing the section of the ordinance that requires "nonconsensual entry into and inspection of rental housing" without regard to first getting a warrant or judicial order. Online court records do not yet show a response to the lawsuit by the Town of Clarksville. According to the U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, as of July 1, 2021, there were just over 22,000 residents in Clarksville, with the owner-occupied housing rate between 2017 to 2021 at just over 61%. [GN] CONFLUENCE HEALTH: Faces New Class Suit Over Wrongful Termination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terra Sokol of NewsRadio 560KPQ 101.7 FM reports that Confluence Health employees filed a new lawsuit against their employer April 5, 2023, even after successfully appealing to the state court of appeals. In April of 2022, 92 former and current Confluence Health employees filed a class action suit against their employer over wrongful termination for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine. On March 20, Douglas County Superior Court Judge Brian Huber dismissed this case for a third time, saying Plaintiffs' failed to identify which employees had requested a religious exemption, and failed to identify which religious beliefs they were claiming. Plaintiff Attorney Steve Lacy filed a second class action lawsuit against the healthcare facility April 5, 2023. The day before filing a new case, the Washington State Court of Appeals accepted the plaintiff's request for appeal. Plaintiffs are using the same argument from their previous class action suit, claiming that Confluence failed to uphold employees' religious/medical exemptions. They are also asking for all past and future damages, reimbursement of legal fees, and to go back to their previous positions. Confluence Health has updated its employee vaccination policies that allows staff to work on hospital grounds if they have an approved medical and/or religious exemption. However, employees are still required to have all of their vaccinations, including the full COVID-19 series, if they do not have an exemption. [GN] CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: June 7 Settlement Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------- IN RE CPI AEROSTRUCTURES, INC. STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Master File No. 1:20-cv-02092 EX. A-1 - NOTICE OF PROPOSED DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF CPI AEROSTRUCTURES, INC. ("CPI" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF MARCH 6, 2023 (THE "RECORD DATE"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE ACTION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS. IF YOU HOLD CPI COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER. Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of this shareholder derivative litigation. This Notice is provided by Order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "Court"). It is not an expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the truth of the allegations in the litigation or merits of the claims or defenses asserted by or against any party. It is solely to notify you of the terms of the proposed Settlement, and your rights related to it. The terms of the proposed Settlement are set forth in a written Stipulation of Settlement, dated June 10, 2022 (the "Stipulation").1 A link to the Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") containing the text of the Stipulation may be found on the Investor Relations page of CPI's website: https://investors.cpiaero.com/overview/default.aspx. WHY THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS NOTICE Your rights may be affected by the settlement of the actions styled In re: CPI Aerostructures Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 1:20-cv-02092, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "Federal Action"); Wurst, et al. v. Bazaar, et al., Index No. 605244/2021, pending in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County (the "Wurst Action"); and Woodyard v. McCrosson, et al., Index No. 613169/2020, pending in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County (the "Woodyard Action") (collectively, the "Actions"). The nominal defendant in each of the Actions is CPI Aerostructures, Inc. ("CPI" or the "Company"). The plaintiffs in the Actions ("Plaintiffs") are Paul Berger ("Berger") and Keith Moulton ("Moulton"), plaintiffs in the Federal Action; Robert Garfield ("Garfield"), who, together with Moulton, made a stockholder inspection demand for CPI's corporate books and records under New York law (the "2021 Inspection Demand"); Robert Clancy ("Clancy") and Karen Leslie Wurst ("Wurst"), plaintiffs in the Wurst Action; and Dan Woodyard ("Woodyard"), plaintiff in the Woodyard Action. The individual defendants in the Actions (the "Settling Defendants") are Douglas McCrosson, Vincent Palazzolo, Terry Stinson, Carey E. Bond, Janet K. Cooper, Michael Faber, Walter Paulick, Eric Rosenfeld, and Harvey J. Bazaar. The Plaintiffs, the Settling Defendants, and CPI-collectively referred to herein as the "Settling Parties"-have agreed upon terms to settle the above-referenced litigation and have signed the Stipulation setting forth the terms of the Settlement. On June 7, 2023, at 10:15 a.m., the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") in the Actions at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, before the Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, or via Zoom or some other video platform or telephonically as the Court may direct. The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine whether: (i) the terms of the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the separately negotiated and agreed upon Fee and Expense Amount should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii) service awards to each of the Plaintiffs to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount should be approved; (iv) a final judgment should be entered, and the Actions should be dismissed with prejudice on the terms set forth in the Stipulation; and (v) such other matters as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances. CPI DERIVATIVE LITIGATION The Actions involve breach of fiduciary duty and related claims asserted by Plaintiffs, derivatively on behalf of CPI, against the Settling Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the Settling Defendants failed to ensure, in violation of their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders, that CPI had properly implemented Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") Topic 606, a revenue recognition standard issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") in 2014 that was designed to help simplify and harmonize revenue recognition practices. Plaintiffs also allege that the Settling Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to ensure that CPI had sufficient internal controls over revenue recognition. The 2021 Inspection Demand sought inspection of books and records to investigate possible breaches of fiduciary duty relating to CPI's compliance with anti-discrimination laws. As set forth in greater detail in Section 3 IV, infra, the Settling Defendants dispute and deny Plaintiffs' factual allegations and contentions and deny any liability. A. The Books and Records Action On or around February 28, 2020, Berger made a demand pursuant to New York common law to inspect certain of CPI's books and records (the "2020 Inspection Demand"). CPI rejected the 2020 Inspection Demand in a letter dated March 20, 2020. On June 5, 2020, Berger filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, asserting a right under New York common law to inspect the books and records sought in the 2020 Inspection Demand. The action was captioned Berger v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., Index No. 606553/2020 (Suffolk Cnty. Sup. Ct.) (the "Books and Records Action"). After negotiations between counsel, Berger agreed to dismiss the Books and Records Actions, and CPI agreed to produce a set of Board minutes and materials in response to the 2020 Inspection Demand. The Books and Records Action was dismissed by Stipulation of Discontinuance on September 10, 2020, and CPI produced documents to Berger's counsel on August 31 and September 3, 2020. B. The Federal Action On May 7, 2020, Plaintiff Moulton commenced a derivative action (the "Moulton Action") in this Court against the Settling Defendants on behalf of CPI alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and contribution for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff Moulton filed an amended complaint on October 26, 2020 alleging substantially the same claims against the Settling Defendants as his initial complaint. On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff Berger filed under seal a substantially similar derivative action on behalf of CPI in this Court against eight of the nine Settling Defendants named in the Moulton Action, alleging breaches of fiduciary and unjust enrichment (the "Berger Action"). The Berger Action included confidential allegations related to the documents produced by CPI following the Books and Records Action. On January 27, 2021, the Court stayed the Moulton Action pending a decision on any motion to dismiss in the related securities fraud class action captioned Rodriguez v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00982-ENV-CLP (the "Securities Class Action"). On March 19, 2021, the derivative actions filed by Plaintiffs Moulton and Berger (the "Federal Plaintiffs") were consolidated (forming the "Federal Action"), pursuant to a stipulation of the parties (ECF No. 20) so ordered by the Court on March 22, 2021 (ECF No. 21). In addition, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") and the Law Offices of Beth A. Keller, P.C. ("Keller Firm") were appointed Co-Lead Counsel for the Federal Plaintiffs. The Court also continued the stay, previously implemented on January 27, 2021. C. The State Actions On September 17, 2020 Plaintiff Woodyard commenced a derivative action in New York Supreme Court (Suffolk County) against the Settling Defendants on behalf of CPI alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On December 22, 2020, the New York Supreme Court stayed the Woodyard Action pending a decision on any motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. On October 14, 2020 and October 15, 2020, respectively, Plaintiffs Wurst and Clancy served CPI with books and records inspection demands pursuant to Section 624 of the New York Business Corporation Law ("Section 624") and New York common law. Following receipt and review of the internal confidential documents CPI produced in response, on March 24, 2021, Plaintiffs Wurst and Clancy commenced a derivative action in New York Supreme Court (Suffolk County) against the Settling Defendants on behalf of CPI alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. On April 20, 2021, the New York Supreme Court stayed the Wurst Action pending a decision on any motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. D. The 2021 Inspection Demand On April 9, 2021, Garfield and Moulton jointly served upon CPI a request for corporate books and records under New York common law to investigate possible breaches of fiduciary duty related to CPI's compliance with anti-discrimination laws. By letter dated April 30, 2021, CPI responded to the 2021 Inspection Demand, rejecting the demand. Following discussions amongst CPI and counsel for Mouton and Garfield, CPI agreed to produce certain documents and the parties executed a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement relating to the production of such documents. CPI's production of documents was held in abeyance while the parties conducted settlement negotiations. E. Settlement Negotiations In April 2021, the Settling Parties agreed to engage in settlement discussions to explore a potential resolution of the Actions and the matters raised in the 2021 Inspection Demand. Such discussions were to take place in connection with a formal mediation process overseen by experienced mediator, John R. Van Winkle (the "Mediator"). Plaintiffs and the Defendants submitted their respective mediation statements to the Mediator, on May 7, 2021. On the same day, Plaintiffs further provided CPI and the Settling Defendants with a joint written settlement demand. The Settling Parties participated in a mediation session conducted by the Mediator on May 13, 2021. The May 2021 mediation session did not yield a settlement of the Actions, but the parties continued settlement negotiations thereafter. Following lengthy negotiations conducted over the course of dozens of verbal and written exchanges, the Settling Parties participated in another mediation session conducted by the Mediator on March 30, 2022, and on that day, reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Actions. The settlement terms involve the Company agreeing to adopt certain Corporate Governance Reforms, subject to Court approval. PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S SEPARATELY NEGOTIATED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES After negotiating the material substantive terms of the Settlement, Plaintiffs' Counsel, counsel for CPI, and CPI's insurer, with the assistance of the Mediator, separately negotiated the attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel based on the substantial benefits conferred upon CPI and its shareholders by the Settlement. In light of the substantial benefits conferred by Plaintiffs' Counsel's efforts upon CPI and its shareholders, CPI, acting by and through its Board, has agreed that CPI and/or its insurer shall cause to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel Five Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand ($585,000.00) dollars in attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to Court approval (the "Fee and Expense Amount"). Subject to Court approval, Plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the Court for service awards of up to One Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($1,500.00) for each of the individual Plaintiffs, to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount, in recognition of Plaintiffs' participation and effort in the prosecution and settlement of the Actions. The Court's decision regarding whether to approve any requested service award, in whole or in part, shall have no effect on the Settlement. The Settling Defendants take no position with respect to the service awards. Neither CPI nor any of the Settling Defendants shall be liable for any portion of any service award approved by the Court. REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT The Settling Parties have determined that it is desirable and beneficial that the Actions and the 2021 Inspection Demand, and all disputes related thereto, be fully and finally settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, and Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of the Settling Parties, CPI, and its shareholders. A. Why Did the Settling Defendants Agree to Settle? The Settling Defendants have denied and continue to deny each of the claims and contentions alleged by Plaintiffs in the Actions and in the 2021 Inspection Demand. The Settling Defendants expressly have denied and continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability against them or any of them arising out of, based upon, or related to, any of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged in the Actions. Without limiting the foregoing, the Settling Defendants have denied and continue to deny, among other things, that they breached their fiduciary duties or any other duty owed to CPI or its shareholders or otherwise engaged in unlawful conduct, or that Plaintiffs, CPI, or CPI's shareholders suffered any damage or were harmed as a result of any conduct alleged in the Actions or in the 2021 Inspection Demand. The Settling Defendants have further asserted and continue to assert that at all relevant times they acted in good faith and in a manner they reasonably believed to be in the best interests of CPI and its shareholders. Nonetheless, the Settling Defendants also have taken into account the expense, uncertainty, and risks inherent in any litigation, especially in complex matters like the Actions, and that the proposed Settlement would, among other things: (a) bring to an end the expenses, burdens, and uncertainties associated with the continued litigation of the claims asserted in the Actions or potential claims arising from the 2021 Inspection Demand; (b) finally put to rest the claims asserted in the Actions or potential claims arising from the 2021 Inspection Demand; and (c) confer benefits upon them, including further avoidance of disruption of their duties due to the pendency and defense of the Actions and the necessity of responding to the 2021 Inspection Demand or defending against potential claims arising from it. Therefore, the Settling Defendants have determined that it is in the best interests of CPI for the Actions and the 2021 Inspection Demand, and all of the Settling Parties' disputes related thereto, to be fully and finally settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation. Pursuant to the terms set forth below, the Stipulation (including all of the Exhibits thereto) shall in no event be construed as or deemed to be evidence of an admission or concession by the Settling Defendants with respect to any claim of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damage whatsoever. B. Why Did Plaintiffs Agree to Settle? Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the claims asserted in the Actions have merit, and Plaintiffs' entry into the Stipulation and Settlement is not intended to be and shall not be construed as an admission or concession concerning the relative strength or merit of the claims alleged in the Actions. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel recognize and acknowledge the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the Actions against the Settling Defendants through trial(s) and potential appeal(s). Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel also have considered the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation, specifically in complex matters such as the Actions, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel also are mindful of the inherent problems of proof of, and possible defenses to, the claims asserted in the Actions. Plaintiffs' Counsel have conducted extensive investigation and analysis, including, inter alia: (i) review of CPI's press releases, recorded public statements, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filings, and securities analysts' reports and advisories about the Company; (ii) review of relevant business and media reports about the Company; (iii) review and analysis of the filings and pleadings in the Securities Class Action; (iv) review and evaluation of certain internal and confidential CPI documents produced in response to books and records demands pursuant to Section 624 and/or New York common law; (v) factual and legal research and analysis conducted in preparing the derivative complaints; (vi) compilation and analysis of data bearing on damages and board and executive compensation potentially subject to disgorgement or clawback; (vii) consultation with an expert relating to complex accounting issues; (viii) additional factual and legal research and analysis performed in connection with the preparation of Plaintiffs' settlement demand and mediation statement, including detailed assessments of each claim and potential defenses, research into corporate governance and oversight best practices generally and among CPI's peer corporations; and (ix) review and analysis of information and documents exchanged with CPI and the Settling Defendants during the course of settlement negotiations. Based on Plaintiffs' Counsel's thorough review and analysis of the relevant facts, allegations, defenses, and controlling legal principles, Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate; confers substantial benefits upon CPI; and would serve the best interests of CPI and its shareholders. SETTLEMENT HEARING On June 7, 2023, at 10:15 a.m., the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") in the Actions at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, before the Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, or via Zoom or some other video platform or telephonically as the Court may direct. The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine whether: (i) the terms of the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the separately negotiated and agreed upon Fee and Expense Amount should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii) service awards to each of the Plaintiffs to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount should be approved; (iv) a final judgment should be entered, and the Actions should be dismissed with prejudice on the terms set forth in the Stipulation; and (v) such other matters as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances. Pending the Effective Date, none of the Settling Parties shall: (i) prosecute or pursue the Actions or the 2021 Inspection Demand; or (ii) file, prosecute, or pursue any other actions, proceedings, or demands relating to the Actions, the 2021 Inspection Demand, or the Settlement. RIGHT TO ATTEND SETTLEMENT HEARING Any CPI shareholder as of the Record Date may, but is not required to, appear in person (or telephonically or via any video platform as may be designated by the Court) at the Settlement Hearing. If you want to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, then you must first comply with the procedures for objecting, which are set forth below. The Court has the right to change the hearing date, time, or platform used (i.e. in person, telephonically, or via video) without further notice. Thus, if you are planning to attend the Settlement Hearing, you should confirm the date, time, and platform before going to the Court. CPI shareholders as of the Record Date who have no objection to the Settlement do not need to appear at the Settlement Hearing or take any other action. RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND PROCEDURES FOR DOING SO Any CPI shareholder as of the Record Date may appear and show cause, if he, she, they or it has any reason why the Settlement of the Actions should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, or why a judgment should not be entered thereon, or why Plaintiffs' service awards or the separately negotiated Fee and Expense Amount should not be approved. You must object in writing, and you may request to be heard at the Settlement Hearing. If you choose to object, then you must follow these procedures. A. You Must Make Detailed Objections in Writing Any objections must be presented in writing and must contain the following information: 1. Your name, legal address, and telephone number; 2. The case name and number (In re: CPI Aerostructures Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 20-cv-02092) 3. Proof of being a CPI shareholder as of the Record Date, March 6, 2023; 4. The date(s) you acquired your CPI shares; 5. A statement of each objection being made; 6. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing. You are not required to appear; and 7. Copies of any papers you intend to submit to the Court, along with the names of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of their testimony. Only shareholders who have submitted valid and timely written notices of objection will be entitled to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, unless the Court orders otherwise. You Must Timely Deliver Written Objections to the Court. All written objections and supporting papers must be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to: Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza E, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or by filing them in person at any location of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the extent the Court is open for in-person filings or electronically through the Court's CM/ECF system. YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED, OR ON FILE WITH THE CLERK FOR THE COURT, NO LATER THAN MAY 24, 2023 [14 days before final approval hearing]. Unless the Court orders otherwise, your objection will not be considered unless it is timely submitted to the Court. Your written objection must also be mailed to: Plaintiffs' Counsel: Beth A. Keller Law Offices of Beth A. Keller, P.C. 118 North Bedford Road, Suite 100 Mount Kisco, New York 10549 Telephone: (914) 752-3040 Facsimile: (914) 752-3041 bkeller@keller-lawfirm.com Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10151 (t) (212) 935-7400 (f) (212) 753-3630 bsachsmichaels@glancylaw.com and Counsel for Defendants Michael G. Bongiorno Tamar Kaplan-Marans WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 (t) (212) 230-8800 (f) (212) 230-8888 tamar.kaplan-marans@wilmerhale.com Any CPI shareholder as of the Record Date who does not make a timely objection in the manner provided herein shall be deemed to have waived any objection to the Settlement and shall be forever foreclosed from making any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as incorporated in the Stipulation; to the Fee and Expense Amount; and/or to Plaintiffs' service awards, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, but shall otherwise be bound by the Judgment to be entered and the release of all Released Claims, including Unknown Claims, as set forth in the Stipulation. HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This Notice summarizes the Stipulation, a copy of which is provided herewith. This Notice is not a complete statement of the events of the Actions or the Settlement contained in the Stipulation. You may also inspect the Stipulation and other papers in the Actions at the Court Clerk's office at any time during regular business hours of each business day. The Clerk's office is located at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201. However, you must appear in person to inspect these documents. The Clerk's office will not mail copies to you. You may also view and download the Stipulation at https://investors.cpiaero.com/homepage/default.aspx. If you have any questions about matters in this Notice, you may contact: Plaintiffs' Counsel: Beth A. Keller Law Offices of Beth A. Keller, P.C. 118 North Bedford Road, Suite 100 Mount Kisco, New York 10549 Telephone: (914) 752-3040 Facsimile: (914) 752-3041 bkeller@keller-lawfirm.com Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10151 (t) (212) 935-7400 (f) (212) 753-3630 bsachsmichaels@glancylaw.com or Counsel for Defendants Michael G. Bongiorno Tamar Kaplan-Marans WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 (t) (212) 230-8800 (f) (212) 230-8888 tamar.kaplan-marans@wilmerhale.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: March 6, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CRACKER BARREL: Bid for Certification in Gillespie Suit Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Ashley Gillespie, et al., Plaintiffs v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. CV-21-00940-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz.), Judge Diane J. Humetewa of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona: a. grants in part the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Conditional Certification; and b. denies Cracker Barrel's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice. The action arises out of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. ("FLSA"). Plaintiffs Andrew Harrington, Katie Liammaytry, Jason Lencerht, and Dylan Basch have filed a Second Motion to Certify. Cracker Barrel has filed a Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. The matter concerns the Plaintiffs' ongoing collective efforts against Cracker Barrel for allegedly violating provisions of the FLSA that govern wages for tipped-employees. They have filed three complaints: the "Original Complaint," the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), and the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The Plaintiffs previously attempted to certify the matter as a collective action under the FLSA but were unsuccessful due to Cracker Barrel's Arbitration Agreement. The named plaintiffs in the Original Complaint were Ashley (Jade) Gillespie, a former Arizona Cracker Barrel employee; Tonya Miller, a current South Carolina Cracker Barrel employee; Tami Brown, a current North Carolina Cracker Barrel employee; and Sarah Mangano, a current Pennsylvania Cracker Barrel employee (collectively the "Original Plaintiffs"). In its Nov. 12, 2021, Order, the Court found Cracker Barrel's Arbitration Agreement was valid and enforceable and that the Original Plaintiffs were subject to the Agreement. Accordingly, it granted Cracker Barrel's First Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration and denied the Original Plaintiffs' First Motion for Conditional Certification without prejudice. The Original Plaintiffs were dismissed so that they may pursue their claims in arbitration. However, the Court permitted them leave to file a first amended complaint because some opt-in plaintiffs were capable of voiding the Agreement due to their status as minors. The named Plaintiffs in the FAC were Harrington, a former Ohio Cracker Barrel employee; Liammaytry, a former North Carolina Cracker Barrel employee; and Lencerht, a current Florida Cracker Barrel employee. All of the FAC Plaintiffs were alleged to be minors when they signed the Agreement, but neither of them worked in any of the fourteen Cracker Barrel stores in Arizona. Accordingly, in its July 22, 2022, Order, the Court granted Cracker Barrel's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also denied as moot the FAC Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Conditional Certification and Motion for Partial Dismissal. In their SAC -- presumably to address the personal jurisdiction concerns and deficiencies of the FAC -- the Plaintiffs added Basch as a fourth plaintiff with Harrington, Liammaytry, and Lencerht. Basch has worked in the Goodyear and Chandler Cracker Barrel restaurants located in Arizona since March 26, 2019, and continues to do so. Cracker Barrel records indicate that Basch was born in January 2003, thus he was 16 years old when he joined Cracker Barrel. Basch was onboarded through Cracker Barrel's routine online employee training program, during which he was presented with Cracker Barrel's Arbitration Agreement through the "ADR3 Sign-Off" module. Basch purports to void the Agreement with Cracker Barrel on the basis that he was a minor when he allegedly entered into the Agreement. The Plaintiffs are all current or former tipped-employees and bring the following four counts against Crack Barrel in the SAC: Count I for failure to pay tipped-employees minimum wages for work performed on non-tipped duties that exceed 20% of their work time under 29 U.S.C. Sections 203(m), 206; Count II for failure to timely inform tipped employees of the tip credit requirements under 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m); Count III for failure to pay tipped-employees minimum wages for off-the-clock work under 29 U.S.C. Sections 206, 207; and Count IV for lack of good faith and willfully violating the FLSA under 29 U.S.C. Section 255(a). The Plaintiffs bring these Counts on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Sections 206 216(b). Judge Humetewa must determine whether the Plaintiffs' SAC should be conditionally certified as a collective action under the FLSA notwithstanding Cracker Barrel's Arbitration Agreement. Because it is dispositive, she first considers Cracker Barrel's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. Cracker Barrel moves to dismiss the SAC for either lack of personal jurisdiction or failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Judge Humetewa then turns to the Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Certify. Judge Humetewa concludes that it is proper to conditionally certify the collective action under the FLSA for notice purposes. She denies Cracker Barrel's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration because Basch effectively voided Cracker Barrel's Arbitration Agreement and has thus stated a claim for which relief can be granted. Furthermore, the addition of Basch -- a current Arizona Cracker Barrel employee -- as a plaintiff establishes the Court's personal jurisdiction over Cracker Barrel and cures the personal jurisdiction deficiencies as to Harrington, Liammaytry, and Lencerht. Judge Humetewa also grants the Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Certify. The Plaintiffs have met their low burden for preliminary certification of the matter as a collective action because they allege violations under the FLSA and have sufficiently shown they are similarly situated with the defined collective. Last, the Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms, with limited modifications, are a proper means of providing notice to the defined collective. Judge Humetewa also approves the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms with the following modifications: (1) The Plaintiffs will include language stating the class period starts on May 28, 2018. (2) The Plaintiffs will delete sections of the notice form, email, and text that advise potential plaintiffs they may contact the Plaintiffs' counsel regarding questions about the collective action or their legal rights. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Conditional Certification is granted in part. Cracker Barrel's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice is denied. The collective class of potential plaintiffs is conditionally certified under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and will consist of all current and former Cracker Barrel servers who worked for Cracker Barrel from May 28, 2018, to the present in states where Cracker Barrel pays its employees under the 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m) tip credit scheme. The Plaintiffs' Notice and Consent to Join forms will be written and sent in compliance with the directives in the Order. Within 21 days of the Order, Cracker Barrel will provide the Plaintiffs the names, mailing addresses, email addresses, cell phone numbers, and dates of employment of all current and former servers who have worked for Cracker Barrel from May 28, 2018, to the present. Cracker Barrel will provide this discovery in electronic and importable format. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfexysk from Leagle.com. DISH NETWORK: Dismissal of Jones Class Action Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAQUITA JONES, LATEESHA PROCTOR, PATRICK SMITH, and BEN MCCOLLUM, v. DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, and DOES NO. 1–20, Case No. 1:22-cv-00167-CMA-STV (D. Colo.), Hon. Judge Christine M. Arguello entered an order affirming and adopting recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge: -- The Plaintiffs' Objection is overruled; and -- The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. -- The Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Court finds this argument to be without merit because the Recommendation adequately discussed and analyzed the allegations regarding the underlying funds. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the portfolio of the Active Suite is diversified among 32 underlying investment vehicles, 22 of which were deficient at the beginning of the class period for either lacking a five-year track record or for failing to outperform their respective benchmarks in the previous three- and five-year periods. Again, the Court finds that these allegations are insufficient to sustain an imprudent monitoring claim because the Court must consider the portfolio as a whole, rather than parsing for individual subsets of funds within the Active Suite. In sum, the Plaintiffs argue that the Recommendation improperly parsed individual allegations rather than engaging in a "holistic review" of the Complaint. The Court disagrees and finds that Judge Varholak carefully and thoroughly evaluated Plaintiffs' allegations while considering the Complaint as a whole. This putative class action arises under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Defendants are administrators and fiduciaries of the DISH Network Corporation 401(k) Plan. The Plaintiffs, who are former DISH Network Corporation employees and Plan participants, seek to certify a class for a period beginning six years before the filing of this action, on January 20, 2016, and extending until the date of judgment. DISH Network is an American television provider and the owner of the direct-broadcast satellite provider Dish, commonly known as Dish Network, and the over-the-top IPTV service, Sling TV. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/413a91H at no extra charge.[CC] DISTRICT 5: Initial Conference Set for May 16 in Lopez Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ILIANA LOPEZ, v. DISTRICT 5 BOUTIQUE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00908-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order scheduling initial case management conference 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/honbarbara-moses. -- An initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on May 16, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. -- The counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days prior to the initial case management conference. District 5 Boutique is a luxury dress shop. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZLxmVj at no extra charge.[CC] DIVERSIFIED ENERGY: Must Face Class Action Over Abandoned WV Wells ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marcellus Drilling News reports that last summer, MDN brought you the news about a lawsuit against Diversified Energy and EQT over the issue of old and "abandoned" wells in West Virginia. In June 2018, MDN exclusively brought our readers the news that Diversified Gas & Oil (now called Diversified Energy) had purchased EQT Corporation's Huron Shale assets, with a bunch of conventional wells, in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia for $575 million (see Diversified Gas & Oil Adds to Conventional Assets in KY, VA, WV). Several WV landowners, prompted (and supported) by Big Green groups, sued the EQT and Diversified last July, alleging the wells no longer produce and (under law) must be plugged. The new news is that a federal judge in WV ruled on April 4 that a proposed class action by the landowners against the companies can proceed. [GN] DM COMMUNICATIONS: Simms Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours -------------------------------------------------------- GARRETT SIMMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DM COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01236 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages and calculate overtime based on employees' regular rates in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Simms worked for DM Communications from February 2020 to January 2023. He asserts that he was not paid an overtime premium for any hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. DM Communications sells T-Mobile wireless phones and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law DOWNEY BREWING: Faces Lopez Suit Over Nonpayment of OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees; Plaintiff v. DOWNEY BREWING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23NVVCV01001 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 30, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code. Lopez claims that the Defendants violated the Labor Code by, among other things, failing to provide employment records and failing to pay overtime compensation. Lopez was hired by Defendants with the job title of bartender and server on or about Sept. 15, 2021. He worked for Defendants up until on or about Nov. 1, 2022. Downey Brewing Co., Inc. is a California corporation, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the state of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Diana Zadykyan, Esq., HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-TRADE SECURITIES: Court Stays Rupnow Class Action Until April 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA RUPNOW, PETER SZOSTACK, and all others similarly situated, v. E-TRADE SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-10942-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order granting parties request staying the Rupnow action through April 21, 2023: The Court further ordered that in the event that a motion for preliminary approval of the parties' settlement is not filed by April 21, 2023, the following schedule shall govern the motion for class certification: Fact discovery must be completed by: May 5, 2023 The Plaintiffs shall move for class May 19, 2023 Certification by: The defendant shall file any opposition June 16, 2023 by: The plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall July 7, 2023 be filed: E-Trade provides institutional brokerage services. The Company offers security-underwriting, trading, and investment banking solutions, as well as sells securities such as stocks, mutual funds, and bonds. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3md7xQe at no extra charge.[CC] EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Benzene Class Action Ongoing in Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Grabenhofe, writing for Cosmetics & Toiletries, reports that product safety is paramount for fast-moving consumer goods such as cosmetics and personal care products. Recent recalls and class action suits highlight this fact and in some ways suggest perhaps the industry is too fast-moving. For example, methanol content in hand sanitizers and lead in a baby skin care cream are the latest recalls published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In addition, dry shampoo and spray sunscreens persist in class action suit headlines due to benzene concerns. Following is a roundup. Methanol in Hand Sanitizers Fortunately, it's been a while since we last reported on recalls due to methanol in hand sanitizers. In February and March 2023, however, two new reports emerged. On March 27, 2023, Jarman's Midwest Cleaning Systems, Inc., of Canton, SD, recalled all lots of its Alcohol Antiseptic 80% Topical Solution Hand Sanitizer Non-sterile Solution, and Isopropyl Alcohol Antiseptic 75% Topical Solution Hand Sanitizer Non-sterile Solution. According to the company, FDA testing found the presence of methanol. To date, the company has not received any reports of adverse events. In addition, on Feb. 14, 2023, nanoMaterials Discovery Corp. of Seattle voluntarily recalled all lots of its Alcohol Antiseptic 80% Alcohol Solution branded as "Snowy Range Blue" in 4 fl. oz. spray dispenser packaging. According to the company, certain batches of the product may exceed FDA limits for methanol. To date, the company has not been notified of any adverse events. Lead in Baby Cream On Feb. 1, 2023, Shop Me Ca of Herndon, VA, recalled its 10-g tubes of Diep Bao Cream for potential lead contamination. The cream was sold nationwide through Shop Me Ca's Facebook page and Vietnamese moms' Facebook groups. The recall was reportedly initiated after testing by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) found high levels of lead in two samples of the product. As a result of using Diep Bao Cream, two infants were found to have elevated blood lead levels. One case was identified after an initial post on Facebook in December 2022 alerted customers about the contamination. The second case was reported by OHA in January 2023. Shop Me Ca initially posted on its Facebook page in December 2022 that the products tested positive for lead. The company has now voluntarily recalled the product and sales of the product have been suspended while the FDA, OHA and the company continue to investigate the source of the problem. Benzene Class Actions Among the safety alerts and lawsuits Cosmetics & Toiletries has reported in recent months, benzene contamination has appeared the most frequently. And here we are again—although in one case, the suit was dismissed. Banana Boat/Edgewell: According to a March 16, 2023 report by Top Class Actions, a suit against Banana Boat will move forward with just four of the original seven plaintiffs. The suit cites Edgewell for not listing benzene as an ingredient in certain sunscreen products. An independent lab tested Banana Boat sunscreens and allegedly ruled out the possibility that benzene was created as a degradation product. The lab concluded the carcinogen most likely entered the products during the manufacturing process and as such, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Aker Meyer of Connecticut dismissed claims for products not involved in that process. Meyer allowed the case to continue, however, with limitations. Klorane/Pierre Fabre: In December 2022, two Illinois consumers filed a suit claiming Klorane brand dry shampoo contained benzene and the ingredient was not disclosed on the product label. The plaintiffs asserted they would not have purchased the shampoo had they known it contained the carcinogen; Pierre Fabre responded by filing a motion to dismiss the suit. On March 10, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion opposing Pierre Fabre's motion, according to Top Class Actions. Reportedly, the plaintiffs' allegations that the "defendant put adulterated products into the marketplace without adequate testing or screening" sufficiently refuted Pierre Fabre's preemption argument because federal law prohibits the sale of adulterated products. Wella/Sebastian, J&J/OGX: Finally, Top Class Actions also reported on two separate suits filed in December 2022 by an Illinois woman against Wella's Sebastian brand and Johnson & Johnson's (J&J's) OGX brand dry shampoos. The products were allegedly found to contain benzene at levels higher than the FDA permits and again, the ingredient was not disclosed on the product labels. On April 3, 2023, the plaintiff dismissed the suit against Wella without prejudice, leaving it open to refile claims in the future; the J&J suit is still pending. These alerts and lawsuits serve as an important reminder to test products as close as possible to their reaching consumers' hands. Such cosmetovigilance is a critical component of assuring public health. [GN] ELITE RIM: Faces Cruz Suit Over Unpaid Wages of Laborers, Repairmen ------------------------------------------------------------------- GALDINO SANTIAGO CRUZ, on behalf of himself, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE RIM REPAIRS LLC, PAUL SCHWEID, and VINCENT LUCA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02468 (E.D.N.Y, March 30, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. Plaintiff Cruz commenced his employment with Defendants in or about 2016 as a laborer and repair man, positions that he held until on or about July 11, 2022. Cruz brings this action to recover unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA and the NYLL, as well as to recover unpaid minimum wages under the NYLL for Defendants' failure to compensate him the appropriate minimum wage rate, for failure to provide spread of hours pay in violation of the NYLL, for failure to furnish accurate wage statements for each pay period under NYLL, and for failure to provide a wage notice upon his hire. Elite Rim is and was a domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business at 30 West Ames Court, Plainview, NY. It operates an automotive detail and repair shop. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 EVERGLADES COLLEGE: Asks to Put on Hold Suit After Proposed Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Hurley of NBC News reports that colleges challenging a class-action settlement that could lead to student loans' being canceled for hundreds of thousands of borrowers asked the Supreme Court to put the case on hold April 5, 2023. The case is unrelated to President Joe Biden's broader effort to forgive student loan debt, which is also before the justices, with a ruling due in the next two months. The new application concerns a settlement California-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup approved in November in a case brought by borrowers who claim their federal student loans should be canceled because their schools, many of which are for-profit, are alleged to have engaged in misconduct. The class-action settlement could be worth more than $6 billion if it is allowed to go into effect, the challengers say. The application at the Supreme Court was filed by Everglades College, Lincoln Educational Services Corp. and American National University. Lincoln and American National are for-profit enterprises, while Everglades is not-for-profit. All three operate colleges the federal government placed on a list of more than 150 institutions that it said are linked with claims of "substantial misconduct." The colleges object to that characterization. The federal Higher Education Act allows debt cancellations in specific circumstances, but the challengers say Education Secretary Miguel Cardona has exceeded his authority. "The secretary's claimed authority amounts to nothing less than the power to cancel, en masse, every student loan in the country," the challengers said in court papers. They asked the Supreme Court to put Alsup's ruling on hold and consider hearing the case on an accelerated basis. Alsup refused the colleges' request to delay his ruling from going into effect, saying their inclusion on the list of colleges did not affect their rights or have any legally binding impact on them. The lawsuit was filed in 2019, four years after the collapse of Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit organization, which led thousands of borrowers to file claims seeking to discharge their debt. In the separates cases involving Biden's debt relief plan, the Supreme Court in February appeared skeptical that it was lawful. The program, which would allow eligible borrowers to cancel up to $20,000 in debt, has been blocked since the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary hold in October, and there are major doubts it will ever go into effect. That plan, which would cost more than $400 billion and affect upwards of 40 million borrowers, is significantly broader than the class-action settlement. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Bid to Sever Plaintiffs' Claims for Trial Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL CASHATT, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-05886-LK (W.D. Wash.), Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to sever: -- The Court denies Ford's Motion to Sever Plaintiffs' Claims for Trial. -- The Plaintiffs' counsel to provide a copy of this Order to her clients. -- The Court finds it necessary to again reprimand counsel and apprise her of its expectations. -- The Court will summarily strike future filings that fail to meet this requirement, including but not limited to untimely briefs. The Court has already set forth the procedural history of this case. The Plaintiffs Randall Cashatt, Brandon Kendall, David Hodel, Chad Prentice, Beth Joswick, and Jeffrey Heath are Washington State Patrol Troopers who were issued Ford Police Interceptor SUVs in the course of their employment. Their fourth amended complaint accuses Ford of violating Washington's Product Liability Act. Specifically, they allege that their Interceptors "were designed, engineered and manufactured by Ford with design flaws and/or defective exhaust and/or HVAC Systems that cause the presence of exhaust fumes, including carbon monoxide, in the passenger compartment while the vehicles are in use (the Exhaust Fume Defect)." Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States. It was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. The company sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford brand, and luxury cars under its Lincoln luxury brand. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m8Ct49 at no extra charge.[CC] GEORGES MEDIA: Discloses Subscriber’s Personal Info, Li Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------------- JULIA ANN LI and WHITNEY RICHARD, on Behalf of themselves and all others similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. GEORGES MEDIA GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case 2:23-cv-01117-EEF-DPC (E.D. La., March 30, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act for disclosing personally identifiable information to Meta without notifying subscribers and without their consent. Allegedly, the Defendant monetizes its websites by knowingly collecting and disclosing its subscribers' PII to Facebook, namely data that personally identifies subscribers and the videos they view. These websites also use a code analytics tool called Meta Pixel, which was implemented at the discretion of Defendant. Pixel tracks the actions of website visitors (subscribers), such as the pages a visitor accesses and the content they view, says the suit. Georges Media Group, LLC is a Louisiana corporation with its principal place of business at 701 Edwards Ave, Elmwood, LA. It developed, owns, and/or operates a platform of websites, including nola.com, theadvocate.com, and theadvocate.com/acadiana. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John M. Jefcoat, Esq. Johnae Jefcoat-Broussard, Esq. GALLOWAY JEFCOAT, L.L.P. P.O. Box 61550 Lafayette, LA 70596 Telephone: (337) 984-8020 Facsimile: (337) 984-7011 E-mail: johnj@gallowayjefcoat.com johnaej@gallowayjefcoat.com - and - Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Lance Spitzig, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 E-mail: ncoulson@lsccounsel.com lspitzig@lsccounsel.com GOODRX HOLDINGS: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Patient's Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- E.C., individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.; CRITEO CORP.; META PLATFORMS, INC.; and GOOGLE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01508 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2023), alleges that the Defendants violated the New York General Business Law 349 (GBL 349). The complaint claims that the Defendants' business acts and practices are unfair and deceptive under GBL 349. Defendants violated GBL 349 by, among other things, disclosing and intercepting Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive data, including private information, without consent. In addition, the Defendants used this information for their own gain and enjoyed economic, tangible, intangible, and other benefits, including highly valuable data for analytics, advertising, and improvement of their platforms, algorithms, and advertising services. Defendant GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in California. It was founded in 2011 and was solely a prescription-coupon company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Israel David, Esq. Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 739-0622 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com blake.yagman@davidllc.com -and- Rebecca M. Hoberg, Esq. MOYA LAW FIRM 1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone.: (510) 926-6521 E-mail: rhoberg@moyalawfirm.com GOOGLE LLC: Apple's Bid to Dismiss California Crane Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CALIFORNIA CRANE SCHOOL, INC., Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-10001-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The motion is fully briefed. After the motion to dismiss was filed, the Court granted Google's motion to compel arbitration and provided leave to the Plaintiff and Apple to submit supplemental briefing focused on whether the FAC stated plausible claims against Apple. Both parties submitted supplemental briefing. The Plaintiff brings a putative class action lawsuit against Apple (and Google) alleging that Apple and Google agreed that Apple would not compete in the search business in competition with Google. In exchange, the Plaintiff alleges that Google agreed to share its profits from the search business with Apple and, in addition, to pay Apple extra billions of dollars. Further, for Google to be able to generate sufficient billions of dollars to pay to Apple, Apple agreed that Google would be the only search engine automatically included in all of Apple's devices. According to the Plaintiff, this in turn gave Google a substantial and unfair anticompetitive advantage over other search providers, actual and potential, including Yahoo!, DuckDuckGo, Bing, and others. The Plaintiff alleges that it and the putative class have paid more to Google to place their ads on its search than they would have paid in a competitive market within the United States, especially if Apple had entered the search business and competed with Google. The FAC alleges the following violations: 1) First Claim for Relief: An Agreement Not to Compete in the Search Business, and 2) Second Claim for Relief: Conspiracy to Monopolize in Violation of Sherman Act Section 2. The Plaintiff also alleges fraudulent concealment. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, divestiture, and disgorgement. Judge Gilliam finds that there is a mismatch between the market that was allegedly restrained and the market in which the Plaintiff was allegedly harmed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff fails to allege antitrust injury. Because antitrust injury is a "necessary" requirement for antitrust standing, the Plaintiff fails to allege antitrust standing. Next, Judge Gilliam agrees with Apple that the Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead direct evidence of a conspiracy. He says the several allegations describing what the Defendants refer to as disconnected quotes do not plead any conspiracy: they just as easily suggest rational, legal business behavior by two companies who have an open business relationship as they suggest an illegal conspiracy and are therefore insufficient to plead a violation of the antitrust laws. Judge Gilliam also finds that the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege a conspiracy through either direct or circumstantial evidence. The allegations are no more sufficient to establish "plus factors" than they were to establish direct evidence, because they do not push the Plaintiff's theory of a conspiracy from possible to plausible. Accordingly, Judge Gilliam dismisses with leave to amend the Plaintiff's Section 1 per se violation claim. Lastly, Judge Gilliam agrees with Apple that even if it committed an overt act during the limitations period, this would still not enable the Plaintiff to recover for any damages incurred outside the statutory limitations period. Accordingly, to the extent that the Plaintiff is seeking recovery that is based on incidents that occurred before Dec. 27, 2017, these claims are dismissed with leave to amend. To the extent that it intends to continue to seek recovery for incidents that occurred before Dec. 27, 2017, the Plaintiff must plead with particularity the circumstances of the concealment and the facts supporting its due diligence. For these reasons, Judge Gilliam grants with leave to amend Apple's motion to dismiss. His Order terminates as moot the Plaintiff's motion to amend. Any amended pleadings are due by April 28, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yfetvzns from Leagle.com. HELEN HOMES: Contreras Seeks Proper OT Pay for Maintenance Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos C. Contreras and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s) v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corporation, a/k/a Kendall Health Care Properties, d/b/a The Palace At Kendall Assisted Living Facility Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-21242-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 30, 2023), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40. Plaintiff Carlos C. Contreras as a non-exempt, full-time maintenance employee from approximately Jan. 31, 2023, or 150 weeks. Plaintiff had duties as a maintenance employee, and his duties included plumbing, electricity, cleaning cloth dryers, all kind of repairs, and purchase of repair supplies. He seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and any other relief as allowable by law. Helen Homes of Kendall Corporation, a/k/a Kendall Health Care Properties, d/b/a The Palace At Kendall Assisted Living Facility (from now on, The Palace At Kendall, or Defendant) is a Florida Profit Corporation. It has a place of business in Dade County. It provides room, board, personal, and healthcare services to the elderly and infirm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com HILTON WORLDWIDE: Appellate Cert. Ruling in Pension Suit Discussed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alison Frankel of Reuters reports that the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on April that trial judges cannot refuse to certify classes simply by invoking the words "fail-safe," in a break with at least four other appellate circuits that have explicitly barred fail-safe classes whose definition depends on the merits of the case. But before plaintiffs' lawyers get too excited about newly lenient standards for defining class membership, the D.C. Circuit warned that the federal rule for class action procedure, Rule 23, already includes requirements that would preclude certification of almost every proposed fail-safe class. "Enforcing the Rule's written requirements is greatly preferred to deploying a textually untethered and potentially disuniform criterion, the contours of which can vary from case to case," wrote Judge Patricia Millett for a panel that also included Judges Sri Srinivasan and Harry Edwards. So, as a practical matter, class action lawyers in the District of Columbia still should not expect to win certification of classes that are defined to include only members who can establish liability against the defendants. The appellate court's ruling, which came in a class action alleging that Hilton Worldwide Inc wrongfully denied pension benefits to certain employees or their beneficiaries, helpfully provided some examples of problematic fail-safe class definitions, including "shareholders whom Company X defrauded" and "all those discriminated against illegally." Both proposed definitions, the court explained, depend on the defendant's liability. That's troublesome, as Hilton's counsel at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett pointed out in the company's appellate brief, because it leaves defendants exposed to follow-on individual lawsuits even if they win on the merits of their liability in classwide litigation. Trial judges, under the new ruling, can't simply deny certification based on a "freestanding bar" against circular, fail-safe class definitions. Instead, the D.C. Circuit said, they should consider whether the proposed class is bound by common questions and whether the class would satisfy Rule 23's numerosity requirement if a defense win on liability would eliminate every member of the class. That analysis, the court said, would knock out the vast majority of proposed fail-safe classes. The appeals court also urged trial judges to help plaintiffs' lawyers address fail-safe defects in their proposed class definitions instead of denying class certification outright. "Perhaps most productively," Millett wrote, trial judges might "simply suggest an alternate class definition and allow the parties to object or revise as needed." Hilton, which declined to comment on the D.C. Circuit ruling, pointed in its appellate briefing to precedent from eight other circuit courts that have either explicitly endorsed a rule prohibiting certification of fail-safe classes or have said that such classes are problematic. Before the D.C. Circuit's decision on April 4, 2023, the 5th Circuit was the only federal appellate court specifically to reject a categorical ban on fail-safe class definitions. Circuits that bar fail-safe classes, Hilton said, have found an implied "definiteness" requirement in Rule 23 that mandates a precise, objective definition of who is in the class. The implied definiteness requirement, Hilton said, can't be reconciled with a class definition that depends on defendants' liability: The fail-safe definition means no one is a member of the class if defendants prevail on liability - which, in turn, means that subsequent suits are not barred by claim or issue preclusion. The D.C. Circuit acknowledged Hilton's arguments about the possibility of endless follow-on litigation for defendants, which Millett elegantly summarized: "If the only members of fail-safe classes are those who have viable claims on the merits, then class members either win or, by virtue of losing, are defined out of the class, escaping the bars of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Heads they win; tails the defendants lose." But the court said that the right way to deal with that potential problem is to focus on the actual text of Rule 23 to figure out why a class definition that rests on defendants' liability runs afoul of the rule's textual requirements. The solution, the D.C. Circuit said, could be as simple as rewording the proposed class definition. (Millett's example: A class improperly defined as "all associates employed by Law Firm Y from 2021 to 2023 who were denied their contractual bonus because Law Firm Y refused to credit pro bono hours," could be salvaged if the class definition were rephrased as associates "who would have received their contractual bonus if Law Firm Y credited pro bono hours.") Plaintiffs' lawyer Stephen Bruce of Stephen R. Bruce Law Offices said by email that he's confident his class definition will hold up on remand to U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of Washington, D.C. The D.C. Circuit described the issue of fail-safe class definition as important, unsettled and recurring - all words that you would expect to see in a petition for en banc or U.S. Supreme Court review of the decision. As I mentioned, Hilton declined to comment in response to my query on a possible appeal. If the company were so inclined, it could certainly argue that the federal circuits are divided on whether a fail-safe class definition automatically dooms class certification. On the other hand, the D.C. Circuit agreed with those other courts that classes generally can't be certified if they are defined to depend on defendants' liability. It parted ways with the other circuits only on whether courts must invoke Rule 23's textual requirements instead of an "untethered" implied prohibition on fail-safe classes. I suspect that would make the case a hard sell at the Supreme Court. [GN] HINDUJA GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle McCarthy Labor Suit for $392,700 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Hinduja Global Solutions agreed to pay $392,700 to resolve claims it failed to pay telephone-dedicated workers sufficient overtime wages. The settlement benefits a class of people who worked for Hinduja Global Solutions as telephone-dedicated employees and who were compensated on an hourly basis between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2021, but who did not receive the full amount of overtime wages owed to them. The settlement also benefits a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective of people who worked for Hinduja Global Solutions as telephone-dedicated employees and who were compensated on an hourly basis between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2021, but who did not receive the full amount of overtime wages owed to them. In addition, the settlement includes a subclass of the same workers from Illinois. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Hinduja of failing to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 hours in a week due to unrecorded pre- and post-shift work. The class action lawsuit claims this conduct violated the FLSA, Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA). Hinduja Global Solutions is a digital customer experience provider that employs over 20,000 employees across eight countries. Hinduja hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $392,700 class action settlement to resolve the wage and hour allegations. Under the terms of the Hinduja Global Solutions settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of workweeks where they worked over 40 hours. Exact payments will vary; no estimates are available at this time. There is no exclusion or objection deadline for this settlement. The final approval hearing for the deal is scheduled for July 7, 2023. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 22, 2023. Who's Eligible People who worked for Hinduja Global Solutions as telephone-dedicated employees and who were compensated on an hourly basis between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2021, but who did not receive the full amount of overtime wages owed to them. People who worked for Hinduja Global Solutions as telephone-dedicated employees and who were compensated on an hourly basis between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2021, but who did not receive the full amount of overtime wages owed to them. The settlement includes a subclass of the same workers from Illinois. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 05/22/2023 Case Name McCarthy, et al. v. Hinduja Global Solutions Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01016-JES-JEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois Final Hearing 07/07/2023 Settlement Website HGSSettlement.com Claims Administrator HGS FLSA Settlement P.O. Box 2006 Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006 info@HGSSettlement.com 866-727-5265 Class Counsel James X Bormes LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES PC Thomas M Ryan LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN PC Defense Counsel Christopher Ward FOLEY & LARDNER LLP [GN] HOAG MEMORIAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 9, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fabiola Castillo et al., v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00117-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered a scheduling order as follows: Jury Trial Jan. 21, 2025 Last Date to File Opposition to Motion Apr. 18, 2024 for Class Certification Last Date to File Reply to Motion for May 9, 2024 Class Certification Hearing on Motion for Class Certification May 30, 2024 Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend July 14, 2023 Pleadings/Add Parties Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 27, 2024 Hoag is a not-for-profit regional health care delivery network in Orange County, California. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nOKV9b at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON CONTROLS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lubinski Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID LUBINSKI; RYAN R. KENNY; MICHAEL A. CORNALE; ANTHONY SANTIAGO; DIEGO D. DIAS; and SEAN MORELLI, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, case No. 1:23-cv-02825 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as plumbers. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. produces electronics and HVAC equipment. The Company offers HVAC equipment, building automation, security, fire detection, batteries, and other related products, as well as building control systems, energy management, and integrated facility management services. Johnson Controls serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-1830 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com milana@lipskylowe.com KAHRS LAW: Sims Suit Tossed W/o Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiction ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PATRICIA A. SIMS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAHRS LAW OFFICES, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 22-2112-JWB (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Broomes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismisses the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. In March 2018, Plaintiff Sims visited the website of Advance Financial because she was interested in obtaining a personal loan. She proceeded to fill out the application for the loan but she did not finalize the application, nor did she receive any funds from Advance Financial. On March 24, 2021, Advance Financial filed suit against the Plaintiff in Jackson County, Missouri seeking $4,047.42. Defendant Kahrs represented Advance Financial in the suit. When filing suit, Kahrs attached an exhibit called an Advance Financial Line of Credit Disclosure and Account Agreement. The exhibit listed the Plaintiff's personal bank account number and routing number. It failed to redact the personal information from the exhibit. The exhibit also contained the Plaintiff's full name, address, and telephone number. The Plaintiff was personally served by a process server with the summons, petition, and exhibit. On July 12, 2021, the Plaintiff's counsel left a message for defense counsel to inform Kahrs that the Plaintiff was represented by counsel in the state court action. One week later, Advance Financial dismissed its suit against Sims without prejudice. Three months later, the Plaintiff brought an action against Advance Financial in state court. At that time, the Plaintiff informed Advance Financial that the exhibit containing her personal information was filed in the prior lawsuit without properly redacting the personal information. Kahrs then moved to seal the exhibit from the public docket. The Plaintiff alleges that her personal information was publicly available for almost a year. According to the complaint, Advance Financial lends money to individuals in several states, including Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri. Since 2020, Kahrs has filed approximately 1,000 lawsuits on behalf of Advance Financial in Missouri. The Plaintiff alleges that Kahrs attaches a copy of each debtor's agreement to the petition upon filing an action to collect the debt that Advance Financial is owed or allegedly owed. She further alleges that Kahrs does not redact the agreement or move to seal the agreement upon filing and that Kahrs disseminated copies of the unredacted agreements to process servers. As a result, Kahrs made more than 1,000 disclosures of other debtors' bank account and routing numbers. The Plaintiff brings claims in her personal capacity and on behalf of others similarly situated. She alleges she has been injured by Kahrs' actions in that her personal information has been publicly disclosed, she has suffered from emotional distress, she has suffered from a loss of privacy, been deprived of the value of her personal information, and is at risk for identity theft due to the public disclosure of her personal information. She alleges that the potential class members, which allegedly include more than 1,000 individuals, have similar injuries. The Plaintiff brings claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f, the Missouri Right to Financial Privacy Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 408.680, and for common law negligence. She seeks an injunction against the Defendant prohibiting any further disclosures of personal information in public filings and an order requiring it to remedy any publicly filed documents with personal information. She also seeks statutory damages under the FDCPA and Missouri law, actual damages, and attorney fees. The Plaintiff has alleged that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because she has alleged a claim under the FDCPA. Further, she alleges that it has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Kahrs has now moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. It asserts that the Plaintiff lacks standing because she has not sufficiently alleged an injury under the FDCPA. It further argues that she has not sufficiently alleged that the Court has jurisdiction under CAFA. Finally, Kahrs argues that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim. Relevant to standing, the Plaintiff has asserted that she suffered the following concrete injuries as a result of Kahrs' conduct: 1) the loss of the value of her personal information; 2) risk of identity theft and identity harm; and 3) garden variety emotional distress. Further, the Plaintiff suggests that the FDCPA violation she has alleged is sufficient to establish standing under Robey v. Shapiro, Marianos & Cejda, L.L.C., 434 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 2006). Robey stands for the proposition that a plaintiff need not establish actual damages in light of the statutory remedy available under the FDCPA. Judge Broomes finds that (i) the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege an actual concrete injury based on the lost value of her PII; (ii) the Plaintiff has not alleged an injury in fact pertaining to this risk sufficient to confer standing, not even for her claim seeking purely injunctive relief; (iii) the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that she suffered a concrete injury in fact as a result of the statutory violation. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim. Due to the finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the federal claim, the only remaining claims are those brought under Missouri state law. The Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the Court had jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Judge Broomes finds that the Plaintiff has the burden to plausibly allege how the "stakes exceed $5 million." She has failed to do so and lacks standing to bring the Missouri Privacy Act claim which she relied on for a significant portion of her damages. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege jurisdiction under CAFA. For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted and the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied. The action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4tr5p32f from Leagle.com. KENNETH A. GUNDERMAN: May 9 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOZSEF MAYER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH A. GUNDERMAN, et al., Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, PART 23 Case No. 24-C-21-003488 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF UNITI GROUP INC. ("UNITI" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF MARCH 3, 2023. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Baltimore City Circuit Court (the "Court"), that a proposed Settlement has been reached between the parties to the above-captioned shareholder derivative action (the "State Derivative Action") brought on behalf of Uniti, which would resolve the State Derivative Action. The Settlement also resolves related claims arising from the same facts asserted in Vincent Guzzo v. Kenneth A. Gunderman et al., No. 1:22-CV-00366-GLR (D. Md.) (the "Federal Derivative Action," and together with the State Derivative Action, the "Derivative Actions"). The Derivative Actions are brought by Plaintiffs solely on behalf of and for the benefit of Uniti, asserting claims against the Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs generally allege, among other things, that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets, and were unjustly enriched by publishing or allowing to be published purportedly false or misleading public statements concerning the Company's spin-off from Windstream Holdings, Inc. ("Windstream") and Uniti's lease of certain network assets to Windstream pursuant to a long-term master lease. On May 9, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., the Court will hold the Settlement Hearing at the Baltimore City Circuit Court, Part 23, located at the Elijah E. Cummings Courthouse, 111 N. Calvert St., Baltimore, Maryland 21202, to determine: (i) whether the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether a final judgment should be entered; (iii) whether the Court should award the requested attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses for the Plaintiffs' Counsel and service awards to the Plaintiffs; and (iv) such other actions as may be necessary or proper under the circumstances. The Court has the right to continue or adjourn the Settlement Hearing from time to time, by oral announcement at the hearing or at any adjournment thereof, as well as to change the hearing date, time, or platform (in person, by video or telephone conference) without further notice to Current Uniti Shareholders. Thus, if you are planning to participate in the Settlement Hearing, you should confirm the date, time and platform before going to the Court, and you may consult the Court's calendar for any change in date or time of, or platform used for the Settlement Hearing. The Court may also approve the Settlement, with such modifications as may be agreed to by counsel for the Settling Parties consistent with such Settlement, without further notice to Current Uniti Shareholders. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU CURRENTLY HOLD UNITI STOCK, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DERIVATIVE ACTIONS. This is a summary notice only. For additional information about the claims asserted in the Derivative Actions and the terms of the proposed Settlement, please refer to the documents filed in the Derivative Actions, the Stipulation, and the full-length Notice of Proposed Settlement (the "Long-Form Notice"). The Stipulation and Long-Form Notice may be viewed on the "Investor Relations" section of Uniti's website at https://investor.uniti.com. If you held stock as of March 3, 2023, and continue to hold stock through the date of the Settlement Hearing, you have the right, but are not required, to appear in person or through counsel at the Settlement Hearing to object to the terms of the proposed Settlement or otherwise present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant. However, no Uniti shareholders shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the proposed Settlement, or, if approved, the Judgment to be entered hereon, unless that Uniti shareholder has, at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing, filed with the Clerk of the Court a written objection to the Settlement setting forth: (i) a written notice of objection with the case name and number (Jozsef Mayer et al. v. Kenneth A. Gunderman et al., No. 24-C-21-003488 (Baltimore City Circuit Court, Part 23)); (ii) the person's name, address, and telephone number, along with a representation as to whether such person intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing; (iii) competent evidence that such person held shares of Uniti common stock as of the date the Stipulation was signed, March 3, 2023, and continuing through the date the objection is made, as well as the date(s) the Uniti shares were acquired; (iv) a statement of each objection being made and the grounds for each such objection; (v) notice of whether such person intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing, the reasons he or she desires to appear and be heard, and whether he or she is represented by counsel and if so, contact information for such counsel; and (vi) copies of any documents or writings such person intends to submit for the Court's consideration, along with the identities of any witness(es) he or she intends to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and a summary description of their expected testimony. YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN APRIL 25, 2023. The Court Clerk's address is: Clerk of the Court Baltimore City Circuit Court Elijah E. Cummings Courthouse 111 N. Calvert St., Baltimore, MD 21202 YOU ALSO MUST DELIVER COPIES OF THE MATERIALS TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS SO THEY ARE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN APRIL 25, 2023. Counsel's addresses are: Counsel for Plaintiffs Shane Sanders ROBBINS LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Counsel for Defendants Brian M. Burnovski DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10021 Unless the Court orders otherwise, your objection will not be considered unless it is timely filed with the Court and delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for Defendants, as set forth above. Any person or entity who fails to object or otherwise request to be heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have waived the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement or otherwise request to be heard (including the right to appeal) and will be forever barred from raising such objection or request to be heard in this or any other action or proceeding. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE 1 All capitalized terms herein have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 3, 2023 (the "Stipulation"). URL: https://investor.uniti.com SOURCE Baltimore City Circuit Court KRAFT HEINZ: Bids to Dismiss Consolidated Shareholder Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE KRAFT HEINZ SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Case No. 20 C 2259 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Consolidated Verified Second Amended Complaint and dismisses the complaint without prejudice. In these consolidated shareholder derivative actions, the Plaintiffs accuse numerous directors and officers of Kraft Heinz of making and causing the company to make misleading statements about the company's performance amid imprudently aggressive cost-cutting efforts. According to the Plaintiffs, these misleading statements allowed some Defendants, as well as an investment firm with which they were affiliated, to profit improperly from sales of the company's stock. The Plaintiffs, several Kraft Heinz shareholders, brought these consolidated cases derivatively, on behalf of nominal Defendant Kraft Heinz, against Defendants Alexandre Behring, Bernardo Hees, Paulo Basilio, David H. Knopf, George Zoghbi, Vince Garlati, Christopher R. Skinger, Rafael Oliveira, John T. Cahill, Gregory Abel, Feroz Dewan, Jeanne P. Jackson, Jorge Paulo Lemann, John C. Pope, Alexandre Van Damme, Tracy Britt Cool, Marcel Hermann Telles, Mackey J. McDonald, and 3G Capital, Inc. ("3G"). The dispute arises out of the 2015 merger of Kraft Foods Group, Inc. ("Kraft") into The H.J. Heinz Co. ("Heinz") to form Kraft Heinz and the aggressive cost-cutting strategy the Defendants adopted and executed in the wake of the merger. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs assert their claims in five counts. Kraft Heinz is a Delaware corporation, and the first three claims arise under Delaware law: Count I, against all Defendants, for breach of fiduciary duty for making untrue statements to shareholders or permitting the company to make untrue statements in public filings; Count II, against 3G, Behring, Lemann, Telles, Hees, Knopf, and Basilio, for insider trading under Brophy v. Cities Service Co., 70 A.2d 5, 8 (Del. 1949); and Count III, against all Defendants, for unjust enrichment. The remaining claims arise under federal law: Count IV, for contribution for violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j, asserted under section 21D of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, in a separate consolidated class action for securities fraud, which is also pending before the Court -- Hedick v. The Kraft Heinz Company, Case No. 19 C 1339; and Count V, for violation of section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n, for submitting a misleading proxy statement. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Verified Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs did not file a pre-suit demand with Kraft Heinz asking the directors to initiate the action against themselves on behalf of the corporation. They allege that they are excused from doing so because a majority of the Board members are disabled from fairly, independently and objectively considering any pre-suit demand that the Plaintiffs may have made. The Defendants move to dismiss for, among other reasons, failure to adequately plead demand futility. First, Judge Alonso fails to see why the directors were required to disclose more information at that time, or what else they were to disclose, if anything. The Plaintiffs do not explain, and Judge Alonso cannot indulge the Plaintiffs in speculating. Even assuming that the Defendants were aware of certain warning signs, it does not follow that they failed to disclose any particular information about them in bad faith -- that is, with intent to do harm or in conscious disregard of their responsibilities. The Plaintiffs do not set forth particularized facts sufficient to demonstrate that the Defendants had the requisite scienter in making allegedly misleading statements or causing Kraft Heinz to issue allegedly misleading documents. Next, based on the allegations of the operative complaint, Judge Alonso finds little to distinguish the case from those many similar cases where the Plaintiff failed to allege with particularity any facts from which it could be inferred that particular directors knew or should have been on notice of alleged accounting improprieties, and any facts suggesting that the board knowingly allowed or participated in a violation of law. The Plaintiffs have not alleged particularized facts that suffice to demonstrate the requisite scienter, i.e., that they consciously disregarded their duties or otherwise acted in bad faith. Judge Alonso then finds that because the Plaintiffs do not plead by way of particularized facts that the Defendants made any misleading disclosures to shareholders -- including the March 2018 proxy statement -- knowingly, intentionally, or in bad faith, they do not plead a non-exculpated claim that suffices to establish demand futility. If a section 14(a) claim has no mental state component, and the Plaintiffs have not pleaded that the Defendants acted knowingly, intentionally, or in bad faith, then the claim does not threaten the Director Defendants with a substantial likelihood of liability because it is not the kind of claim that exceeds the protection of the exculpatory provision. Judge Alonso also says the Plaintiffs have not made particularized allegations sufficient to establish that demand would have been futile as to a majority of the Board, so the Defendants' motions to dismiss must be granted. He need not reach the Defendants' arguments that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. Judge Alonso makes one final note. Much of the material the parties submitted to the Court in briefing the present motions was filed under seal. At the time these motions were briefed, the case was proceeding before a different judge, and the Court is unaware of why so much of the docket is sealed. If the Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, and if the parties intend to file further documents under seal, Judge Alonso will require the parties to provide a fuller explanation than the Court has found in the written record for why they are entitled to proceed under seal. In particular, he will expect the parties to file motions to seal in which they explain why the standards for filing under seal, as set forth in decisions such as Baxter International, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir. 2002), and Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000), are met in the case. Because he concludes that the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that it would have been futile to make a pre-suit demand on the company's board of directors, as required under Delaware law, Judge Alonso grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss. He dismisses the complaint without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint, if any, by May 1, 2023. The Court sets a status hearing for May 11, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p87swpn from Leagle.com. L&K COFFEE: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $6.15-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that L&K Coffee Co. agreed to pay $6.15 million to resolve claims it falsely advertised its coffee as originating from the Kona region. The settlement benefits individuals who farmed Kona coffee in the Kona district and sold their Kona coffee between Feb. 27, 2015, and Oct. 4, 2022. L&K is a coffee company that owns several coffee brands including Magnum Coffee Roastery. According to a class action lawsuit, L&K falsely advertises its coffee products as originating from the Kona District in Hawaii despite being farmed from other areas. The Kona District on the Big Island of Hawaii grows some of the best quality coffee in the world due to its volcanic soil, elevation and humidity. Consumers are willing to pay a higher price for Kona coffee based on its reputation, plaintiffs explain. L&K allegedly takes advantage of this reputation by passing its ordinary coffee as higher quality Kona coffee. Farmers say they have been injured by this false advertising. Counterfeit Kona coffee products allegedly drive down the price of genuine Kona coffee. In addition, counterfeit products allegedly bring down the reputation of Kona coffee when customers make judgments based on inferior products. "By their actions, Defendants have artificially depressed the market price of authentic Kona coffee, harmed the reputation of authentic Kona coffee as a premium product, and caused consumer confusion as to the legitimate sources of Kona coffee," the Kona coffee class action lawsuit contends. L&K hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $6.15 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Other coffee companies, such as Kroger and Costco, agreed to similar settlements with coffee farmers. Under the terms of the Kona coffee class action settlement, class members can collect a pro rata payment based on their reported sales volumes. Payments will also vary depending on the net settlement fund after the deduction of fees, expenses, awards and voluntary contributions to the Kona region. In addition to providing cash payments, L&K agreed to make changes to its labeling to no longer indicate its coffee products originate from the Kona region. The deadline for exclusion and objection has passed. The final approval hearing for the Kona coffee class action settlement was held Feb. 16, 2023. Class members who previously submitted a claim form with prior settlements do not need to resubmit their information. Class members who have not made a claim with a prior settlement will need to submit a claim form. The deadline to submit a claim form is May 30, 2023. Who's Eligible Individuals who farmed Kona coffee in the Kona district and sold their Kona coffee between Feb. 27, 2015, and Oct. 4, 2022. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Tax name (farm or individual) and Tax ID (SSN/EIN), along with the in-production coffee acreage of the farm for each year from 2015 to 2021. Claim Form Deadline 05/30/2023 Case Name Bruce Corker, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-rsl, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. Final Hearing 02/16/2023 Settlement Website KonaCoffeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Kona Coffee Farmers Settlement Administrator c/o JND Legal Administration PO Box 91232 Seattle, WA 98111 833-667-1227 Class Counsel Nathan T Paine KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL Jason L Lichtman Daniel E Seltz Andrew R Kaufman LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP Defense Counsel Gregory M Hatton THEODORA ORINGHER PC [GN] LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS: Brown Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; SIDEARM SPORTS, LLC THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN; and THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN ATHLETICS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00374 (W.D Tex., April 3, 2023) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff subscribed to https://texassports.com/ (the "Team Website" or "Longhorns Website") operated by or based on Defendants' guidelines, coding, and content. The Defendants do not disclose on the Team Website that subscribers' personal identifying information ("PII") would be captured by the Facebook Pixel utilized by the Defendants (referred to as the "Pixel," discussed and defined herein), and then transferred to Facebook thereby exposing the subscribers' PII to any person of ordinary technical skill who received that data. The Defendants do not seek and have not obtained consent from users or subscribers to utilize the Pixel to track, share, and exchange their PII and Video Watching Data with Facebook, says the suit. LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS LLC provides sports radio broadcasting services. The Company manages athletic multimedia rights to numerous collegiate institutions and associations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Yarborough, Esq. Marshal J. Hoda, Esq. Jeffrey Lucas Ott, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 220 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 331-5254 Facsimile: (713) 513-5202 Email: patrick@fosteryarborough.com marshal@fosteryarborough.com luke@fosteryarborough.com -and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com LIRA OF NEW YORK: Tin Dismissed from Hernandez Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORLANDO MINO HERNANDEZ, OSMEL RUBEN SOSA NAJERA, RAFAEL BASURTO GOMEZ, JOSE LUIS MENDEZ, MIGUEL MIRANDA, ROSALIO PEREZ, ANGEL GEOVANI RAMOS, and PALEMON BENITO ANTONIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LIRA OF NEW YORK INC., doing business as LUKE'S BAR AND GRILL, LUIGI MILITELO, TOMMY TIN, and LUIGI LUSARDI, Case No. 1:20-cv-04457-RA-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order that the motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the Defendant Tin and denied with respect to Defendant Militello. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' attempt to situate their conclusory allegations in relation to "kitchen staff" does not save their claim against Tin. The conclusory allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth, and once those boilerplate statements are stripped away, the only factual detail left is that Tin had some direction over the kitchen staff at Luke’s Bar and Grill. This barebones assertion is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss." The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts and lengthy procedural history of this action. Plaintiffs brought this case against Defendants on June 10, 2020, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the Spread of Hours Wage Order. On September 28, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed affidavits representing that Defendants had been served on August 12, 2020. According to the affidavits, Defendants had been served by leaving copies of the summons and complaint at their place of business with an individual of suitable age and discretion, and by mailing copies of the summons and complaint to that place of business, in accordance with New York Civil Practice Law section 308(2). On June 22, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add two additional Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint on June 23, 2021. The Plaintiffs also filed new affidavits of service for the individual Defendants, each of which stated that the individual Defendants had been served with the Amended Summons and First Amended Complaint on September 13, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zzLbv9 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2924: Show Cause Order Entered in Ranitidine Liability Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2924, No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: a. orders the Plaintiffs to show cause why summary judgment should not be entered against all Plaintiffs for designated cancers, regardless of the date the case was filed; and b. establishes requirements for the briefing of responses to her Order to Show Cause. The matter is before the Court on the Retailers' and Distributors' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Generic Defendants' Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, the Generic Defendants' Motion for Entry of Judgment, the Brand Defendants' Memorandum of Law Addressing Entry of Final Judgment, and the Plaintiffs' Memorandum Addressing Final Judgment. In the referenced filings, the Defendants seek entry of final judgment and the Plaintiffs oppose entry of final judgment. After careful consideration, Judge Rosenberg concludes that her decision whether to enter final judgment is based on certain threshold determinations. One such threshold determination is whether certain Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because, if they are, summary judgment would in turn entitle those Defendants to the entry of final judgment. The purpose of Judge Rosenberg's Order is to resolve the question of whether summary judgment should be entered in favor of certain Defendants in each Plaintiff's case without regard to the date the case was first filed; once the question of summary judgment is resolved, she will return to the question of which Defendants are entitled to final judgment and how final judgment will be entered. Soon after the MDL was initiated, the Court scheduled an initial conference. Prior to the initial conference, the parties conferred on whether they could, through agreement, propose a case management structure to the Court at the initial conference. Because the parties did reach an agreement, the parties presented their proposal to the Court at the initial conference. The Court agreed with the parties' proposed case management schedule and memorialized its intent to organize the MDL around general causation in Pretrial Order 24. In short, it was, from the very inception of the MDL, always the intent and design of the parties and of the Court that general causation would, if decided in the Defendants' favor, be dispositive of all cases in the MDL The Plaintiffs agree that final judgment should be entered, without an order to show cause process, in favor of the Brand Defendants for all Designated Cancer cases filed prior to August 1, but they argue that the Court should not enter final judgment for post-August 1 cases without an order to show cause process. Judge Rosenberg agrees with the parties' consensus that all Plaintiffs are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard. But she makes two observations about how the individual Plaintiffs must be heard and when they must be heard. As for when the individual Plaintiffs must be heard, she fails to see how an arbitrary date of August 1 somehow divided the Plaintiffs into a group of those who received a meaningful opportunity to be heard and those who did not. As for how the Plaintiffs had or will have the opportunity to be heard, the Plaintiffs' Leadership was appointed by the Court for that very purpose. Judge Rosenberg's Order serves as a Rule 56(f) notice, through an order to show cause process, and grants the Plaintiffs the opportunity to address why the Court should not enter summary judgment as to every Designated Cancer personal injury case in the MDL, regardless of the date the case was first filed, including cases filed on or after Aug. 1, 2022, for of all the reasons the Brand Defendants were previously found to be entitled to summary judgment. To aid in the clarity and structure of the parties' briefing on her Order to Show Cause, Judge Rosenberg focuses on the following five salient points: (1) the case management structure of the MDL always provided for the Court's general causation rulings to apply to all of the Plaintiffs' cases; (2) the theoretical capability of ranitidine to cause cancer is the same across all Defendants and across all cases; (3) the Court's application of its general causation ruling to all of the Plaintiffs' cases should come as no surprise to the Plaintiffs; (4) the Court's ruling applies equally to both the Defendants and to the Plaintiffs; and (5) the Court's ruling results in efficiency and streamlines case management of the MDL. Consistent with the procedural basis for the Court's entry of the Order to Show Cause, Rule 56(f), Judge Rosenberg expects that the Plaintiffs' responses will be premised upon Rule 56 and the standard for summary judgment. Based upon the parties' briefing, however, she anticipates that the parties may additionally argue (i) whether the Plaintiffs have been afforded due process, (ii) whether the Court's Daubert ruling was correct, and (iii) whether the Court's Daubert ruling (and related summary judgment ruling) applies to certain individual cases. Should any party argue that a Plaintiff is entitled to relitigate general causation, the party should argue what effect, if any, a Plaintiff's prior participation in the Registry should have on the relitigation of general causation. Turning to the scheduling and briefing of responses, the Plaintiffs' Leadership will file a joint response, after conferral with individual Plaintiffs who wish to respond to the Order to Show Cause, by April 18, 2023. Individual Plaintiffs who elect to file a response to the Order to Show Cause that differs from the response filed by the Plaintiffs' Leadership may file a motion for leave to file a response by May 5, 2023. Before filing such a motion, the Individual Plaintiffs are not required to confer with the Defendants or the Special Master. They will confer, however, with the Plaintiffs' Leadership, and the Individual Plaintiffs must comply with the requirements of the Order to Show Cause, including the requirement to address certain topics. The Court reserves on whether it will require a supplemental response from the Plaintiffs' Leadership on the content of any Individual Plaintiff's response to this Order to Show Cause. The Defendants will file a joint reply to the Plaintiffs' Leadership's response by May 2, 2023. They will file a joint reply to any Individual Plaintiff's response by the deadline set by the Court in any order granting an Individual Plaintiff leave to file a response. All responses and replies will be limited to thirty pages each. The ability of newly-filed Plaintiffs to participate in the Order to Show Cause process extends even to those Plaintiffs who have yet to have their case formally assigned and consolidated into this MDL. This Order to Show Cause applies to every Designated Cancer case in the MDL that has not received entry of a Rule 58 final judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2jefw8 from Leagle.com. MGM RESORTS: Bids for Dismissal of Price-Gouging Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Zalucki of KTNV Las Vegas reports that a motion has been filed to dismiss the lawsuit against several Las Vegas Strip hotel operators that alleges the companies engaged in a price-fixing scheme. The lawsuit filed by Hagens Bergman alleges that a revenue management platform known as Rainmaker has been using "real-time pricing and supply information" to help hotel operators maximize profits in violation of antitrust laws. The motion, which was filed by Attorneys representing MGM Resorts, said the plaintiffs are alleging "conspiracy," which they "failed to prove" is happening. The motion says the plaintiffs have failed to prove that any Rainmaker software was being used at any of the ten hotels in Las Vegas that MGM is alleged to operate. These hotels include the Bellagio, Aria, Park MGM, New York-New York, MGM Grand, Excalibur, Luxor, Mandalay Bay, Four Seasons and VDARA at Aria. ". . . They have failed to allege that these hotels even receive such pricing recommendations," the motion states. The defendants note that the original class-action lawsuit named the Borgata, which is an MGM property operated in New Jersey, but claim the reference is "irrelevant to the lawsuit." Attorneys for MGM even cited previous anti-trust litigation, which states, "A complaint alleging an anti-trust conspiracy must allege that each individual defendant joined the conspiracy and played some role in it . . ." The lawsuit claims the Rainmaker program advertises "15% revenue growth" as well as testimonials from its parent company, Cendyn, describing "implausible performance" for clients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit have until June 12 to respond. [GN] MILLER ENERGY: $7.6MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on June 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Miller Energy Securities Litigation: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MORGAN COUNTY NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE STATE OF TENNESSEE MARCIA GOLDBERG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. DELOY MILLER, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2015-CV-33 Judge Pemberton KENNETH GAYNOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. DELOY MILLER, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2015-CV-34 Judge Pemberton SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED MILLER ENERGY'S 10.75% SERIES C CUMULATIVE REDEEMABLE PREFERRED STOCK ("SERIES C") AND/OR 10.5% SERIES D FIXED RATE/FLOATING CUMULATIVE REDEEMABLE PREFERRED STOCK ("SERIES D") ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 13, 2013, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Circuit Court for Morgan County, Ninth Judicial District in the State of Tennessee, that a hearing, which the Court may require or permit to be conducted as a telephonic hearing in light of the ongoing exigent circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, will be held on June 12, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., before the Honorable Michael S. Pemberton, Circuit Court Judge, at the Circuit Court for Morgan County, Ninth Judicial District in the State of Tennessee, Morgan County Courthouse, 415 North Kingston Street, Wartburg, TN 37887, for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation for $7,600,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Settlement Class should be finally certified pursuant to Rules 23.01 and 23.02(3) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of settlement only; (3) Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (4) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; (5) to award Plaintiffs an amount in connection with their representation of the Settlement Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (6) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court. The Court may adjourn or continue the Settlement Hearing without further notice to Settlement Class Members. Please note that the date, time, and location of the Settlement Hearing are subject to change without further notice. In light of the ongoing exigent circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court may require or permit attendance at the Settlement Hearing by telephone. If the Court requires or permits telephonic participation in the Settlement Hearing, the dial-in number for the Settlement Hearing will be posted on www.MillerEnergySecuritiesLitigation.com. Settlement Class Members who intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing are advised to visit www.MillerEnergySecuritiesLitigation.com for updates. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED MILLER ENERGY'S SERIES C AND/OR SERIES D PREFERRED STOCK ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 13, 2013, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than June 20, 2023) or electronically (no later than June 20, 2023). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by June 20, 2023, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the settlement of this Litigation. If you purchased or acquired Miller Energy's Series C and/or Series D Preferred Stock on or after February 13, 2013, and do not request exclusion from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Class Action Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice"), you may obtain a copy by writing to Miller Energy Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 301134, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134, or on the internet at www.MillerEnergySecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than May 23, 2023, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All Settlement Class Members who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. Any objection to the Settlement or the fee and expense application must be mailed to each of the following recipients, received no later than May 23, 2023: CLERK OF THE COURT THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MORGAN COUNTY NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Morgan County Courthouse 415 North Kingston Street Wartburg, TN 37887 Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above or by email at settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com. DATED: March 8, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MORGAN COUNTY NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE MISSISSIPPI: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wallace, et al., v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00516 (S.D. Miss.), Hon. Judge Lakeysha Greer Isaac entered an order on motion to extend deadline amended class certification scheduling order: -- Expert witnesses for class certification, if any, shall be disclosed, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, by: for Plaintiffs' side: November 17, 2023 for Defendants' side: January 19, 2024 -- Discovery must be completed by: March 29, 2024 -- Daubert motions challenging the April 30, 2024 parties' class certification experts must be filed by: -- The Plaintiffs' side motion for June 14, 2024 class certification and memorandum shall be filed by: The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition. The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) is a state agency of Mississippi that operates prisons.[CC] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces New Antitrust Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph D. Russon AP College Sports Writer of ABC News reports that the attorneys who beat the NCAA in the Supreme Court have filed a new class-action antitrust lawsuit against the association and the five wealthiest college sports conferences. The attorneys who beat the NCAA in the Supreme Court have filed a new class-action antitrust lawsuit against the association and the five wealthiest college sports conferences that seeks millions of dollars in damages for thousands of athletes. The case was filed April 4, 2023 -- the day after the NCAA Tournament concluded -- in the Northern District of California, where several other landmark cases involving college sports have been heard. The plaintiffs are listed as former Oklahoma State running back Chuba Hubbard, who is currently with the Carolina Panthers, and former Auburn track athlete Keira McCarrell, but the lawsuit seeks triple damages for all current and former Division I athletes as far back as 2018. The defendants named in the lawsuit are the NCAA, the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conference. A 2019 ruling by a federal judge in the so-called Alston case against the NCAA made it permissible for schools to provide nearly $6,000 in academic benefits to college athletes. The NCAA appealed the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2021, the court ruled unanimously against the NCAA. "Since the Supreme Court's decision in Alston, dozens of Division I schools have announced that they will be providing $5,980 academic awards to athletes across all sports," attorney Steve Berman said in a statement. "Thousands of female and male athletes, including many in sports other than football and basketball, will directly benefit from this action aimed at recovering the monetary awards, of which the NCAA illegally deprived them." The NCAA did not immediately respond to request for comment. Berman, of the Seattle-based firm Hagens Berman, and Jeffrey Kessler, a New York-based attorney with Winston & Strawn LLP, were the lead lawyers on the Alston case. "While the injunction striking down the NCAA's restrictions on education-related compensation, which was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court in Alston, unlocked life-changing benefits for NCAA Division I athletes moving forward, it did not rectify the harm suffered by thousands of Division I athletes who were unlawfully prevented from receiving education-related compensation before the injunction was issued," Kessler said in a statement. "Plaintiffs aim to recover triple damages for those injuries here." Berman and Kessler have another open case against the NCAA that is seeking to recoup damages dating back to 2016 for college athletes who were denied by NCAA rules to earn money from their names, images and likenesses. House vs. the NCAA also asserts college athletes should be permitted to share in the billions of dollars the association and some conferences make in media rights deals. The NCAA has lost the two previous lawsuits filed in the Northern District of California that have gone to trial before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, including a 2014 ruling in an antitrust case that challenged the NCAA's ability to use the name, image and likeness of college athletes for commercial purposes. The NCAA lifted its ban on college athletes being compensated for sponsorship and endorsement deals in 2021, shortly after the Supreme Court ruling in the Alston case. College sports leaders have been asking for help from federal lawmakers to regulate NIL compensation ever since, but to no avail. The NCAA is also currently facing a separate -- potentially greater -- legal threat in Pennsylvania, where a federal lawsuit seeks to have college athletes deemed employees of their schools. [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hubbard Sues Over Student-Athlete Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was sued in California federal court on April 4, 2023 in a proposed class action that alleges thousands of current and former student athletes were denied annual cash payments for academic achievement in violation of U.S. antitrust law. Two former college athletes filed the complaint against the NCAA, which is the governing body for U.S. intercollegiate sports, and a group of its member conferences. The lawsuit alleged an unlawful conspiracy to bar cash awards for academic success. The lawsuit builds off a U.S. Supreme Court 9-0 ruling in 2021 that said it was illegal for the NCAA to have blocked schools from offering education-related benefits, including an award of up to $5,980 a year to student athletes. More than 50 schools have since started to offer those payments. "This is part of the continuing effort to bring justice to the athletes who have been deprived of the ability to share in the revenues they generated by the NCAA," a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Jeffrey Kessler of law firm Winston & Strawn, told Reuters on April 4, 2023. Representatives from the NCAA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The suit seeks to represent a class of "thousands" of current and former student athletes who competed on a Division I team starting in April 2019, before the academic awards were permitted. Division I is the top level of college sports in the United States, including big money makers football and basketball as well as many other sports. The complaint said the NCAA, its league conferences and member schools "generate billions of dollars a year in revenues from Division I sports." The two named plaintiffs are Chuba Hubbard, who played football at Oklahoma State University, and Keira McCarrell, a former track and field runner at the University of Oregon and Auburn University. The plaintiffs "did not receive the academic achievement awards that they would have received in a competitive market," the complaint alleges. The case is Hubbard et al v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 4:23-cv-01593. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Linebacker Patrick Suit May Lead to Class-Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Floria, writing for ProFootball Talk, reports that last year, Broncos linebacker Aaron Patrick suffered a torn ACL due to a sideline collision at SoFi Stadium in a April 3 game against the Chargers. He filed a lawsuit seeking fair compensation for his injuries. His action could have much bigger ramifications for the NFL. Patrick's case, filed against the NFL, ESPN, the Rams, the Chargers, and other entities, was moved from state court to federal court by the NFL and the Chargers, under the argument that the dispute falls within the scope of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and that Patrick should be required to see relief through the CBA's internal grievance procedures. Patrick has argued that the claim has nothing to do with any aspect of the CBA, and that it's a standard and basic "slip-and-fall" lawsuit arising from the question of whether the owners and operators of the premises on which a football game is played have responsibility to make the field reasonable safe. Here's where an otherwise boring question of federal labor-law preemption becomes potentially compelling. If Aaron Patrick prevails on this argument, the door could be opened for a class action against the owners and operators of every NFL stadium that utilizes artificial turf, with an argument that fake grass creates unreasonable risk of injury for those who play football on it. It wouldn't be an easy argument to make. But the possibility of such an attack on artificial surfaces currently is being contemplated. It would be an aggressive and creative way to use the legal system to force the NFL and its teams to provide safer playing surfaces for the men who play the game. [GN] NATIONAL GENERAL: Court Junks Snuffer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY SNUFFER, v. NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-00654 (S.D. W. Va.), Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order that: -- National General's motion to dismiss is granted. -- Count II of Ms. Snuffer's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. -- The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this written opinion and order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. The Court said, "Assuming Ms. Snuffer could establish that National General’s form violated the requirements of section 33-6-31d, National General would still be permitted to assert its offer satisfied section 33-6-31(b) under the Bias standard. National General could thus yet contend each offer was effective and that any rejection was knowing and informed. But determining whether each offer satisfies the Bias standard "require[s] intensive, individual fact-finding."" Accordingly, inasmuch as each offer and rejection would still require analysis under the Bias standard, Ms. Snuffer has failed to plead sufficient facts "to demonstrate that the class members 'have suffered the same injury.' Class certification therefore would be improper," the lawsuit says. Ms. Snuffer has maintained an automobile insurance policy with National General since at least 2012. National General operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KhWtsY at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL INCOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goppert Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA K. GOPPERT; SARAH VALENTE; JAMES O'NEILL; JENNIFER ABE; and EMILY HERENDEEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 153096/2023 (N.Y., Sup., New York Cty., April 4, 2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as insurance agents. NATIONAL INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services. National Income Life Insurance Company serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Email: lambinder@vandallp.com llusher@vandallp.com asakovits@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 Email: mnisar@nisarlaw.com sghim@Nisarlaw.com NAVY FEDERAL: Lopez Suit Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOEY M LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01890 (D.N.J., April 4, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION operates as a financial cooperative. The Union provides financial solutions such as loans, investment, savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related services. Navy Federal Credit Union serves communities worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Niznick, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL F. NIZNIK 1500 Walnut Street Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 589-0601 Email: Michael@NiznikLaw.com - and - Robert P. Cocco, Esq. 1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 351-0200 Email: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com - and - Phillip R. Robinson, Esq. Consumer Law Center LLC 8737 Colesville Road, Suite 308 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 448-1304 Email: phillip@marylandconsumer.com NCAA: Class Certification Opposition Due April 28 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as House, et al., v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Claudia Wilken entered an order regarding stipulation to modify case schedule as follows: Event Current Date The Court's Tentative Date Class Certification Opposition Apr. 14, 2023 Apr. 28, 2023 and Supporting Expert Reports, and Defendants' Daubert Motion Deadline to Depose Defendants' May 29, 2023 Jun. 12, 2023 Class Experts Class Certification Reply and Jun. 30, 2023 Jul. 21, 2023 Expert Rebuttal Report, Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Daubert Motion, Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion Expert Discovery Cut-Off Feb. 28, 2024 Mar. 15, 2024 NCAA is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MlMaXM at no extra charge.[CC] OVASCIENCE INC: June 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT BUSINESS LITIGATION SESSION JOSEPH CIMA, derivatively and on behalf of OVASCIENCE, INC. Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE DIPP, JEFFREY YOUNG, RICHARD H. ALDRICH, MARY FISHER, MARC KOZIN, STEPHEN KRAUS, THOMAS MALLEY, HARALD F. STOCK, JOHN HOWE, and JOHN SEXTON, Defendants, and OVASCIENCE, INC. Nominal Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. 2016-3443-BLS NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF PREVIOUS ENTITY KNOWN AS OVASCIENCE, INC., NOW KNOWN AS TEMPEST THERAPEUTICS, INC. ("TEMPEST" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK (TICKER SYMBOL: TPST) PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF LEGACY STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION THAT INVOLVED THE TEMPEST PREDECESSOR COMPANY KNOWN AS OVASCIENCE, INC. AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DERIVATIVE ACTIONS, COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, AND FROM PURSUING RELEASED CLAIMS. THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this action is being settled on the terms set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement, dated March 20, 2023 (the "Stipulation"). The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of: * the existence of the above-captioned derivative action pending in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County (the "Court") captioned Cima v. Dipp, et al., Case No. 2016-3443-BLSI (the "Action"), * the existence of a similar derivative action pending in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, captioned Chiu, et al. v. Dipp, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-11382 ("Federal Action," together with the State Court Action, the "Derivative Actions"), * the proposed settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants reached in the Derivative Actions (the "Settlement"), * the hearing to be held by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement and dismissal of the Consolidated Action with prejudice, * Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for fees and expenses, and * Plaintiffs' case contribution service awards. This Notice describes what steps you may choose to take, if any, in relation to the Settlement. This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court about the truth or merits of Plaintiffs' claims or Defendants' defenses. This Notice is solely to advise you of the proposed Settlement of the Derivative Actions and of your rights in connection with the proposed Settlement. Summary On March 20, 2023, the Company, in its capacity as a nominal defendant, entered into the Stipulation to resolve the Derivative Actions filed derivatively on behalf of legacy company OvaScience, Inc., in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company and against the Company as a nominal defendant. The Stipulation and the settlement contemplated therein (the "Settlement"), subject to the approval of the Court, are intended by the Parties to fully, finally, and forever compromise, resolve, discharge, and settle the Released Claims and to result in the complete dismissal of the Derivative Actions with prejudice, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Stipulation. The Settlement was reached after a long, arms-length settlement process. The proposed Settlement requires the Company to adopt certain corporate governance reforms, as outlined in Exhibit A to the Stipulation. In light of the substantial benefits conferred upon the Company by Plaintiffs' Counsel's efforts, after engaging in arm's length negotiations, the Individual Defendants agreed to cause their insurers to pay Plaintiffs' Counsel's attorneys' fee and expenses in the amount of $450,000.00 (the "Fee and Expense Award"), subject to Court approval. Plaintiffs' Counsel may also apply to the Court for $1,500 case contribution service awards to be paid to each of the three Plaintiffs (the "Service Awards"), to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Award. This Notice is a summary only and does not describe all of the details of the Stipulation. For full details of the matters discussed in this summary, please see the full Stipulation and its exhibits posted on the Company's website, https://ir.tempesttx.com/investor-resources/notices, contact Plaintiffs' Counsel at the addresses listed below, or inspect the full Stipulation and its exhibits filed with the Clerk of the Court. What are the Lawsuits About? The Derivative Actions were brought derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant OvaScience, Inc., a predecessor company of Tempest, and allege that, beginning in 2013, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other violations of law by making and/or causing OvaScience to make materially false statements or omissions to the investing public, and by causing the Company to fail to maintain internal controls. Specifically, the Derivative Actions allege that legacy OvaScience, Inc. was a fertility company that claimed to have discovered a therapy which increased in vitro fertilization ("IVF") live birth rates by extracting mitochondria (a substance in egg cells which is generally viewed as the energy source of the egg) from egg precursor cells (immature egg cells found in the protective outer layer of a woman's own ovaries) and injecting the same into the mature egg being utilized in the IVF process. The Derivative Actions alleged that this process, the AUGMENT℠ treatment ("AUGMENT"), was OvaScience, Inc.'s sole marketable product at the relevant time. The Derivative Actions also alleged that the theory that such injection of additional mitochondria improves egg health and IVF success rates, was difficult to test and prove. It was further difficult to test the efficacy of the AUGMENT treatment. Nonetheless, the Derivative Actions alleged that OvaScience, Inc. repeatedly communicated to investors that the efficacy of AUGMENT had been scientifically validated, which was untrue. Further, on March 16, 2015, OvaScience, Inc. represented to investors that it was on target to have 1,000 active AUGMENT treatment cycles in process by the end of fiscal 2015, which the Derivative Actions also alleges was untrue and known by OvaScience, Inc. to be untrue. The Derivative Actions alleged that the Individual Defendants caused OvaScience, Inc. to issue false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (a) the science behind AUGMENT had not been scientifically validated; (b) OvaScience, Inc. was unable to achieve the purported success rates it claimed; (c) the reasons why OvaScience, Inc. moved its studies outside of the United States; (d) that at all relevant times, OvaScience, Inc. profitability and prospects were false and misleading; and (e) resultantly, OvaScience, Inc. lacked adequate internal controls over its publicly issued statements and financial reporting. Why is there a Settlement of the Derivative Actions? The Court has not decided in favor of Defendants or Plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions. Instead, the Parties have agreed to the Settlement to avoid the distraction, costs, and risks of further litigation, and because the Company has determined that the corporate governance reforms adopted by the Company as part of the Settlement provide substantial benefits to the Company and its shareholders. Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by Plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions. The Individual Defendants have expressly denied and continue to deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability against them arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts, or omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the Derivative Actions. Nonetheless, Defendants have concluded that it is desirable for the Derivative Actions to be fully and finally settled in the matter and upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Stipulation. The Settlement Hearing, and Your Right to Object to the Settlement On March 23, 2023, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation and the Settlement contemplated therein (the "Preliminary Approval Order") and providing for notice of the Settlement to be made to the Company's shareholders. The Preliminary Approval Order further provides that the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on June 12, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Peter B. Krupp in Courtroom 1309 at the Suffolk County Superior Court, 3 Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108 to among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Company and its current shareholders; (ii) consider any objections to the Settlement submitted in accordance with this Notice; (iii) determine whether a judgment should be entered dismissing all claims in the Derivative Actions with prejudice, and releasing the Released Claims against the Released Persons; (iv) whether the Court should approve the agreed-to Fee and Expense Award; (v) whether the Court should approve the Service Awards, which shall be funded from the Fee and Expense Award to the extent approved by the Court; and (vii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. The Court may, in its discretion, change the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing without further notice to you. The Court also has reserved the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by videoconference without further notice to you. If you intend to attend the Settlement Hearing, please consult the Court's calendar and/or the website of the Company, https://ir.tempesttx.com/investor-resources/notices/, for any change in date, time or format of the Settlement Hearing. Any current shareholder of the Company who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation, or to the agreed-upon Fee and Expense Award or Service Awards to the three Plaintiffs, may file with the Court a written objection. An objector must at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing: (1) file with the Clerk of the Court and serve (either by hand delivery or by first class mail) upon the below listed counsel a written objection to the Settlement setting forth (a) the nature of the objection; (b) proof of ownership of the Company common stock as of March 20, 2023 and through the date of the filing of any such objection, including the number of shares of the Company common stock held and the date of purchase or acquisition; and (c) any and all documentation or evidence in support of such objection. Any objector who does not timely file and serve a such an objection shall be foreclosed from raising any objection to the Settlement and shall not be permitted to appear at the Settlement Hearing, except for good cause shown. IF YOU MAKE A WRITTEN OBJECTION, IT MUST BE ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN May 22, 2023. The Clerk's address is: Clerk of the Court, Suffolk County Superior Court 3 Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108 YOU ALSO MUST DELIVER COPIES OF THE MATERIALS TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL SO THEY ARE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN May 22, 2023. Counsel's addresses are: Counsel for Plaintiffs: THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. Timothy Brown 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (516) 922-5427 E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON Thomas J. McKenna 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com Counsel for Defendants: MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. John F. Sylvia, BBO # (555581) Matthew D. Levitt, BBO # (660554) One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Tel: (617) 348-1820 Email: Jfsylvia@mintz.com Mdlevitt@mintz.com An objector may file an objection on his, her, or its own or through an attorney hired at his, her, or its own expense. Any current shareholder of the Company who does not timely file and serve a written objection complying with the above terms shall be deemed to have waived, and shall be foreclosed from raising, any objection to the Settlement, and any untimely objection shall be barred. Any objector who files and serves a timely, written objection in accordance with the instructions above, may appear at the Settlement Hearing either in person or through counsel retained at the objector's expense. Objectors need not attend the Settlement Hearing, however, in order to have their objections considered by the Court. If you are a current shareholder of the Company and do not take steps to appear in this action and object to the proposed Settlement, you will be bound by the Judgment of the Court and will forever be barred from raising an objection to the settlement in this State Court Action, and from pursuing any of the Released Claims. COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS AS OF MARCH 20, 2023 WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION. Interim Stay and Injunction Pending the Court's determination as to final approval of the Settlement, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel, and any Company shareholders, derivatively on behalf of the Company, are barred and enjoined from commencing, prosecuting, instigating, or in any way participating in the commencement or prosecution of any action asserting any Released Claims derivatively against any of the Released Persons in any court or tribunal. Scope of the Notice This Notice is a summary description of the Derivative Actions, the complaints, the terms of the Settlement, and the Settlement Hearing. For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the Derivative Actions, reference is made to the Stipulation and its exhibits, copies of which may be reviewed and downloaded at https://ir.tempesttx.com/investor-resources/notices * * * You may obtain further information by contacting Plaintiffs' Counsel at: Timothy Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501, New York, NY 10017, Telephone: (516) 922-5427, E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net; or Thomas J. McKenna, Gainey McKenna & Egleston, 501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Telephone: (212) 983-1300, Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com. Please Do Not Call the Court or Defendants with Questions About the Settlement. PATRONSCAN INC: Norman Files Class Suit Over BIPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Haydock of Cook County Record reports that a class action lawsuit has taken aim at Patronscan, a vendor providing systems to help bar and nightclub owners in the U.S. and elsewhere to detect fake IDs, saying the company's technology violates Illinois' biometrics privacy law in the way it is used to scan the faces of people visiting entertainment venues. Erica Norman, on behalf of herself and others filed a new class action lawsuit on March 23 in Cook County Circuit Court against Servall Biometrics, which does business as Patronscan Inc. Norman is accusing Patronscan of violations against the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) for allegedly using facial recognition technology on event goers without first obtaining their consent or providing notices concerning usage, storage, and privacy protection. Last January, Norman attended a concert featuring the band Pajamas in Chicago at nightclub venue, Bourbon on Division. At the door, the bouncer allegedly used Patronscan facial recognition technology to compare her face against the driver's license she presented, to verify her age prior to entry. Using advanced facial recognition technology, the Patronscan device allegedly performed a full facial geometry scan on Norman's face, using multiple biometric identifiers to compare her face with the photograph on her ID. Norman alleges in her complaint that she was not asked to provide her consent prior to being required to undergo a scan to enter the event. She also claims that Patronscan allegedly did not disclose the data retention policy, both of which the suit asserts are in violation of BIPA. The complaint describes Patronscan's system as "Orwellian" in nature. The suit states Patronscan goes well beyond simple facial recognition to compare multiple mapped data points against thousands of others in Patronscan's database to determine if there is a match between known criminals, more than 50,000 flagged "troublemakers," and VIPs whose biometric information is stored and shared within Patronscan's vast business customer network. Further, the suit contends, if a previously unflagged customer enters a venue and is involved in an altercation, Patronscan flags them as a problematic customer and retains their biometric data making it available on its "flagged" database. It then allegedly uses this as marketing fodder for potential new business claiming business owners now have the ability through their service to have the ultimate bouncer, one which never forgets a face. Passed in 2008, the BIPA law has imposed various requirements on businesses in the name of protecting people from the mishandling of biometric identifiers. Among the requirements, the law requires businesses to obtain consent from people before scanning their biometric identifiers, including fingerprints, retinal scans and facial geometry. The law also requires businesses to provide certain notices concerning how the scanned data will be used, stored, shared and ultimately destroyed. Since 2015, businesses in Illinois have been blitzed by a storm of class action lawsuits under the BIPA law, generally accusing businesses of violating the technical notice and consent provisions, While the lawsuits rarely accuse businesses of causing any actual harm, courts have generally allowed the plaintiffs to still use the law to demand massive potential payouts from the businesses. Under the law, plaintiffs are allowed to demand damages of $1,000 or $5,000 per violation. Under two new Illinois Supreme Court decisions, those damages can be multiplied by each time a person's biometric identifier is scanned, stretching back over the preceding five years. As a result of such risk, many companies have chosen to settle out of court. Facebook and Google, for instance, famously opted to pay $650 million and $100 million, respectively, to end class action lawsuits accusing them of improperly scanning people's faces in photos uploaded to their photo and media sharing platforms. This newest class action against Patronscan represents another in an ever expanding trend to target supposed BIPA violators. The Plaintiffs are demanding a trial by jury and are seeking damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, as allowed by the BIPA law, plus attorney fees and court costs. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Kenneth A. Wexler, Justin N. Boley and Eaghan S. Davis of the firm of Wexler, Boley & Elgersma, of Chicago; Ryan F. Stephan, James B. Zouras and Catherine Mitchell, of the Stephan Zouras firm, of Chicago; and Kevin Landau, of Taus, Cebulas and Landau, of Chicago. [GN] PATTERN ENERGY: Lead Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Pattern Energy Group Inc. Securities Class Action, Case No. 1:20-cv-00275-MN-JLH (D. Del.), Hon. Judge Maryellen Noreika entered an order that: 1. Lead Plaintiffs' limited objections to report & recommendation are overruled. 2. the report and recommendation. 3. Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. 4. The Class for this class action shall be defined as: all persons and entities who held Class A common stock of Pattern Energy Group Inc. as of the January 31, 2020, record date for the merger with Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (Merger), were entitled to vote on the Merger, and received the Merger consideration; excluding Defendants, their immediate families and trusts and investment vehicles operated by them or for their benefit, and excluding Riverstone Holdings LLC and its affiliates, CBRE Caledon Capital Management and its affiliates, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board and its affiliates, and any person or entity that received a legal or beneficial ownership interest in the surviving new entity that emerged from the Merger." 5. The Water Island Funds1 are certified as the Class Representatives. The Water Island Funds consist of The Arbitrage Fund; Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Commingled Fund, L.P.; Morningstar Alternatives Fund a series of Morningstar Funds Trust; Litman Gregory Masters Alternative Strategies Fund; Columbia Multi-Manager Alternative Strategies Fund; Water Island Diversified Event-Driven Fund; Water Island LevArb Fund, L.P.; and Water Island Long/Short Fund. 6. Entwistle & Cappucci LLP is authorized to act as lead class counsel on behalf of the Class, along with liaison class counsel Farnan LLP and additional counsel Susman Godfrey L.L.P., with respect to all acts required by, or necessary to be taken under, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Orders. Pattern Energy is an American company that develops, owns and operates utility scale wind and solar power facilities in the United States, Canada, Japan, and Mexico. It is headquartered in San Francisco, California with an operations center in Houston, Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m7dlLc at no extra charge.[CC] PORSCHE CARS: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 22 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA WASHBURN, v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01233-TL (W.D. Wash.), Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order setting jury trial date and related dates as follows: Event Date Jury trial set for 9:00 a.m. Feb. 3, 2025 Deadline for joining additional parties: Apr. 14, 2023 Deadline for filing amended pleadings: Sept. 15, 2023 Deadline to file motion for class Dec. 22, 2023 certification and expert reports: Deadline to file opposition to motion Feb. 22, 2024 for class certification and expert reports: Deadline to reply to opposition to motion Apr. 22, 2024 for class certification and expert reports: Settlement Conference, if mediation has Nov. 4, 2024 been requested by the parties per LCR 39.1, held no later than: PCNA, based in Atlanta, Georgia, is the exclusive importer of Porsche vehicles for the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41nqUVR at no extra charge.[CC] PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Haydock of Cook County Record reports that debt collection law firm Blitt & Gaines and debt collector Portfolio Recovery Associates have been hit with a class action lawsuit, accusing the debt collectors of falsely claiming debt collection complaints have been "verified," allegedly to allow their collection complaints to be processed more quickly and allegedly sidestepping the need to prove the debts are valid. Gilberto Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others, filed a new class action against Blitt & Gaines P.C., Portfolio Recovery Associates and Barrister Investigations and Filing Service on March 24 in Cook County Circuit Court. Gonzalez is accusing Blitt of violations under the Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for allegedly filing motions for default judgements that were allegedly falsely verified. According to its website, Blitt is a law firm dedicated to resolving collections attempts. According to the complaint, Blitt was retained by PRA, a company which purchases defaulted consumer debt and then, through litigation, attempts to recover it. Barrister is a detective agency that also acts as a debt collector through various means to locate assets a consumer has that can be garnished to recover a debt. According to the complaint, Blitt and PRA routinely use the services of Barrister to obtain affidavits of execution, a regular part of the process in debt collection cases they file. The suit accuses Blitt of then using the affidavits executed by Barrister, to mislead consumers into believing the collection action against them has been validated. An Affidavit of Execution is a sworn statement that attests a document in question was physically signed and witnessed. According to court documents, Blitt mailed a copy of the complaint and summons in a sealed envelope to Gonzalez on February 18, 2022. However, the affidavit which avers that a copy was mailed on the 18th was executed on the 17th, a full day earlier than the alleged date it was mailed. Therefore, the suit contends that the affidavit is false. According to the complaint, PRA hired Barrister to obtain the affidavit. Barrister, the suit claims, ostensibly has a history of submitting "robo-signed" affidavits like the one against plaintiff Gonzalez, that allegedly were never physically reviewed and which are allegedly misrepresentations of the consumer. According to the complaint, on the same date the affidavit was supposedly signed, an agent of Barrister, Julian D. Bennett, appears on the affidavit as having sworn to the validity of the claim against Gonzalez. The complaint asserts that Bennet's signature, which appears to be a physical signature, is an electronic signature, that he did not review or sign it, and would not have been aware of the filing since it was "robo-signed". Barrister, the complaint alleges, is in effect, sidestepping due process, creating the appearance to consumers like Gonzalez that the action against them has been reviewed and validated. In other words, a signed affidavit renders the claim against a consumer ostensibly "verified" or uncontested. This is a critical juncture for this complaint as, under Illinois law, a complaint registered as verified can be used to obtain a default judgement so that "prove up" is not required. And according to the complaint, Gonzalez received an allegedly verified Motion for Default and Judgement which asked the court to enter a judgement for the amount in default in the allegedly verified complaint. It's therefore reasonable to conclude, court documents contend, that most consumers receiving such a motion, would be misled into believing that as a result of a debt complaint being shown to be verified, and therefore unable to be challenged in court, there is no reason to show up in court to defend the complaint. Such misrepresentation, the suit asserts is a clear violation of FDCPA by Blitt that Gonzalez claims is an attempt to obtain fraudulent judgments. Further, the suit states that the motion which eludes to a verified complaint, was never filed with the court at any point by Blitt, allegedly on behalf of PRA. The plaintiffs seek to expand the action to include potentially everyone in Cook County who has received such allegedly falsely verified motions from Blitt and the other defendants in the past year. The complaint does not estimate how many people that may include, but says it is at least more than 40 people. Plaintiff is demanding a trial by jury and is seeking actual, statutory and punitive damages, plus court costs and legal fees. Gonzalez is represented by attorney Mario Kris Kasalo, of The Law Office of M. Kris Kasalo, of Skokie. [GN] PRETTY WOMEN: Nine Exotic Dancers Join in Filing Labor Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Kauffman of Iowa Capital Dispatch reports that nine exotic dancers have joined a lawsuit against a West Des Moines club where they allegedly worked without salary and had to pay the owner for the right to work for tips. In 2022, former dancer Cierra Turner sued Pretty Women Inc., which owns the gentleman's club Beach Girls, located at 6220 Raccoon River Drive in West Des Moines. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleges violations of state and federal minimum-wage laws, unjust enrichment, and unlawful tip sharing. Turner's attorneys are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit, enabling them to combine the claims of multiple dancers into a single proceeding. That process requires the plaintiff's attorney, in conjunction with the court, to give Beach Girls' dancers notice of the lawsuit against the club and their right to join the litigation. After receiving the notice, the dancers can decide whether they want to sign on to the lawsuit as co-plaintiffs. In the Beach Girls case, the club's attorney asked that language be added to the notices warning the dancers that they "may owe back taxes" if they were to be awarded any unpaid wages. The defense also urged the court to include language in the notice advising dancers who joined the lawsuit that their tax returns might be subject to disclosure through the discovery process — and that if any tax liabilities were discovered, the club wouldn't provide them with representation. Turner's attorney resisted those demands, arguing they were designed to discourage dancers from joining the lawsuit as class members. U.S. District Court Senior Judge James E. Gritzner sided with Turner's attorney on both issues, ruling that the warnings proposed by the defendants were based on an assumption that dancers who decided to opt in were entitled to some amount of relief. In addition, the court said, "warning prospective litigants that they will incur unknown liability by opting in poses an obvious risk of chilling participation, which the court will not permit on the basis of speculation." Beach Girls also objected to plans giving the dancers 90 days to join the litigation, citing cases in which pizza-delivery drivers were given only 60 days to decide whether to join class-action litigation over their wages. Gritzner rejected that argument, noting that the pizza-delivery drivers "presumably did not work under pseudonyms or pose the other communication challenges that may be present here." Exotic dancers are engaged in a profession with high turnover and are "particularly transient," and more difficult to contact, the judge noted. In recent weeks, nine additional dancers have signed on to the case: Ashley Parrish, Madison Breckenridge, Danielle Lamar, Morgan Coffey, Kierra West, Talia Reese, Tanusha Reese, Ciara Gilliam and Kamryn O'Connor. The lawsuit alleges the club misclassified its dancers as "independent contractors" for whom the minimum-wage law did not apply and then refused to provide a minimum-wage salary. The only compensation dancers earned was in the form of tips from the club's patrons, the lawsuit claims, and the dancers were required to pay the owners a "house fee" of $40 for every shift they worked. Some of the money collected in tips also had to be shared with other workers, such as disc jockeys, or routed back to the club’s owner, according to the lawsuit. Some of the dancers "sometimes completed a full shift only to owe Beach Girls money," the lawsuit claims. Turner's lawyers are seeking unspecified damages, back pay, restitution, interest, attorney's fees and court costs. Under federal law, employers can pay tipped employees as little as $2.13 per hour. By refusing to let the dancers keep all of their tips, however, the club allegedly violated the federal tip-pool law and lost the right to claim a credit for those tips that could be applied to the minimum-wage standards. Co-defendants in the case, all of whom have denied any wrongdoing, include J.P. Parking, which is alleged to be "effectively the same company" as Pretty Women Inc.; the two companies' president, James Petry of Warren County; and Beach Girls' manager Kent O'Connell of Polk County. [GN] RICE DRILLING: J&R Passmore Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J&R PASSMORE, LLC et al., v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01587-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to strike John McBeath; 3. denying the Plaintiffs' motions to strike the Declarations of Lucas Herren and Matt Reser; and 4. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' duplicative Motion to Strike the Declaration of Matt Reser. The Plaintiffs own various pieces of property in Belmont County, Ohio, as well as the oil and gas rights to these properties. Rice Drilling entered into leases with Plaintiffs for the development of oil and gas minerals on Plaintiffs' properties. Rice and Gulfport Energy entered into an agreement whereby they agreed to drill wells in Belmont County. Pursuant to this agreement, each drilled wells on Passmore’s property, while Rice drilled additional wells on the Schusters', Butlers', and Feiocks' properties. Rice and Gulfport Energy shared in the revenue produced from the sale of oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons from the wells on each of these properties. Rice also assigned certain interests it had in its lease with Passmore and in certain leases with other putative class members to Defendant Gulfport Appalachia, LLC. On December 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), seeking certification of the following class: "All persons or entities who own oil and natural gas mineral interests in Belmont County, Ohio that entered into or who are parties or beneficiaries of oil and gas leases entered into with one or more of the Defendants named herein; in which leases the Lessor retained all rights to the formations and the hydrocarbon products contained in the formations below the base of the Utica Shale formation; where one or more of Defendants Rice, Gulfport, XTO, and Ascent have drilled and fractured their well(s) below the base of the Utica Shale formation; and where one or more of Defendants Rice, Gulfport, XTO, and Ascent are producing oil, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons from formations below the base of the Utica Shale formation without agreement from the Lessor." A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GsAs9G at no extra charge.[CC] S.C. JOHNSON: Faces Garvey Suit Over Mislabeling of Seal Bags ------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARET PEGGI LOUISE GARVEY on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01518 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2023) arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading business practices with respect to the marketing and sale of its household and personal care products, particularly the Ziploc Brand. The brand's seal bags as "recyclable" when, in fact, they are not recyclable because they are made from low-density polyethylene film that is not recyclable. The Defendant allegedly violated several laws including the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Civil Code, California's False Advertising Law, the California Business and Professions Code, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff also brings claims against Defendant for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. S.C. Johnson & Sons, Inc. is a corporation with its principal place of business located at 1525 Howe Street, Racine, WI. The company owns the Ziploc trademark, and manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes its Ziploc Brand Products throughout the US. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Morris, Esq. Shane E. Greenberg, Esq. MORRIS LAW FIRM 4001 West Alameda Avenue Suite 208 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (747) 283-1144 Facsimile: (747) 283-1143 E-mail: jmorris@jamlawyers.com - and - Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq. ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC 7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1910 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-5151 Facsimile: (314) 455-7375 E-mail: dan@orlowskylaw.com - and - Adam M. Goffstein, Esq. GOFFSTEIN LAW, LLC 7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1910, St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-5151 Facsimile: (314) 455-7278 E-mail: adam@goffsteinlaw.com SAGILITY LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ankeny Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS ANKENY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAGILITY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00828-PAB (D. Colo., April 3, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Ankeny was employed by the Defendant as a customer service representative. SAGILITY LLC is in the business of call center services and taking inbound calls to answer queries from customers of Defendant’s clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com - and - Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A. 147 Wappoo Creek Dr., Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 579-7373 Email: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com - and - Brett M. Ehman, Esq. BRETT M. EHMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 2971 W. Montague Ave., Suite 203 North Charleston, SC 29418 Telephone: (843) 225-3607 Email: brett@ehmanlaw.com SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses Redd-Oyedele Suit v. SCCOE ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANN GERTHELIA REDD-OYEDELE, Plaintiff v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-02128-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The Title VII employment action is brought by pro se Plaintiff Redd-Oyedele against her employer, Defendant Santa Clara County Office of Education ("SCCOE"), and two SCCOE employees, Individual Defendants Stephanie Gomez and Marissa Perry. The Plaintiff asserts one claim for Title VII race discrimination and one claim for "Conspiracy to Abridge Civil Rights as Enshrined in the US Constitution" arising out of the Defendants' decision to promote other employees instead of the Plaintiff, allegedly on account of her race. Ms. Redd-Oyedele is an African American graduate of San Jose State University. She is currently a Senior Advisor within the SCCOE's District Business and Advisory Services ("DBAS") department, where she has worked since June 1991. Ms. Redd-Oyedele alleges that, over the past 32 years, she has been promoted twice and, for the past decade, has been the only Black employee in the DBAS department. Defendant SCCOE provides educational, advisory, and financial services to school districts within Santa Clara County. Gomez is the Chief Business Officer at SCCOE and is responsible for the DBAS department, general services, purchasing services, internal business services, accounting services, budget office, payroll services, and risk management. Perry is the SCCOE Director of Human Resources and Classified Personnel Services. She is responsible for employee benefits, employment services, live scan services, HR administrative services, substitute services, workforce development and organizational culture, and unemployment insurance. Around May or June 2021, Ms. Redd-Oyedele applied for an "Interim Director III" position within the DBAS department. The interim position was filled by another candidate, Susan Ady, who is white, does not have a degree, and has been working at the SCCOE for a shorter period than Ms. Redd-Oyedele has. In August 2021, Ms. Redd-Oyedele applied for a similar but permanent position, "Director III" of the DBAS department. Ultimately, the permanent position was again filled by Ms. Ady. Gomez subsequently informed the Plaintiff that she did not receive the position because she had "no leadership skills." On January 11, 2022, Ms. Redd-Oyedele filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against the SCCOE alleging Title VII violations. In the EEOC Charge, Ms. Redd-Oyedele indicated that she was discriminated by the SCCOE between June 2021 and August 2021 on the basis of race, color, and for retaliation, EEOC Charge 1. After she filed the EEOC Charge, Ms. Redd-Oyedele received a notice letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH"), indicating that the DFEH would not be initiating an investigation into the matter. The letter also provided notice of Ms. Redd-Oyedele's "Right to Sue," permitting her to bring a civil action against the SCCOE in California state court. On Feb. 16, 2022, Ms. Redd-Oyedele received a similar letter from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), Civil Rights Division, indicating that the EEOC would not be investigating the charge and the DOJ would not be filing a lawsuit. The letter also informed Ms. Redd-Oyedele of her right to bring a Title VII action against the SCCOE. On April 4, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the present Complaint pro se against the SCCOE, Gomez, and Perry. Her Complaint asserts two claims: (1) Violation of Title VII; and (2) Conspiracy to Abridge Civil Rights as Enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The Complaint does not specify against which the Defendant each claim is asserted. In terms of relief, from the SCCOE only, the Complaint requests a permanent injunction from engaging in the unlawful conduct alleged and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race or color, as well as back pay, compensatory damages for the Plaintiff and other African American employees, non-pecuniary damages for the Plaintiff, punitive damages, and costs. Additionally, it seeks from all three Defendants to make whole the Plaintiff by providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful practices, including but not limited to rightful-place job assignments. The Defendants filed this motion to dismiss on April 29, 2022, which was fully briefed on May 18, 2022. The Court took the Motion under submission without hearing on Nov. 23, 2022. The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint on Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) grounds, requesting dismissal on all issues except for the Title VII claim against the SCCOE. They argue that the Title VII claim may not be maintained against the Individual Defendants because Ms. Redd-Oyedele did not name either individual on her EEOC Charge and that Title VII cannot be brought against individuals. They also seek dismissal of the Complaint's second conspiracy-related claim against all them based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, as well as being fatally vague and failing to meet state notice requirements. Finally, they seek to dismiss the Complaint's prayer for class action damages and punitive damages. Judge Davila holds that the Title VII claim is not precluded against the Individual Defendants for failure to allege specific wrongdoing in the EEOC Charge. Given that the EEOC Charge expressly named both Individual Defendants and alleged that they were each involved in the interview process that ultimately denied Ms. Redd-Oyedele the promotions, both Defendants were involved in the acts giving rise to Ms. Redd-Oyedele's EEOC Charge. Next, Jugde Davila holds that Ms. Redd-Oyedele may not maintain her Title VII claim against the Individual Defendants in their official capacities because she is already suing their governmental employer, SCCOE, on the same claim. Moreover, the specific claims and which Defendant they are directed at is somewhat unclear in the Complaint, but it appears that Ms. Redd-Oyedele is only attempting to assert a Title VII claim, not a Section 1981 claim. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted on the grounds that Title VII does not impose liability on individual employees. Because this is an issue of law, Ms. Redd-Oyedele would not be able to amend her Complaint to avoid this bar. The Title VII Claim is, therefore, dismissed without leave to amend as to the Individual Defendants. Judge Davila also holds holds that the Eleventh Amendment shields the SCCOE from liability for the Conspiracy Claim and dismissed the claim without leave to amend against it. With respect to the Conspiracy Claim against Individual Defendants, he finds that, although the Conspiracy Claim meets most of the elements under Ex parte Young, it does not contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for conspiracy under either 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 or 1985(3). Furthermore, to the extent that Ms. Redd-Oyedele seeks to vindicate her federal constitutional rights, she does not need to allege that she complied with the claim presentation requirements of Cal. Gov. Code. Section 945.4. Because Judge Davila finds that the Complaint's deficiencies arise from insufficient factual allegations, permitting Ms. Redd-Oyedele to amend her Complaint would not be futile. Accordingly, the Conspiracy Claim against the Individual Defendants is dismissed with leave to amend. Finally, Judge Davila says there is no reason why Ms. Redd-Oyedele -- perhaps with assistance of counsel -- may not attempt to bring a class action complaint in a future amended complaint. Therefore, the Complaint's request for damages on behalf of "other affected African American employees" is dismissed with leave to amend. With respect to the Individual Defendants here, the Complaint does not seek punitive damages against those defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion on punitive damages is granted; the prayer for punitive damages against the SCCOE is dismissed without leave to amend. Based on the foregoing, Judge Davila grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as follows: (1) the Title VII claim is dismissed without leave to amend as to the Individual Defendants; (2) the Conspiracy Claim is dismissed without leave to amend as to the SCCOE; (3) the Conspiracy Claim is dismissed with leave to amend as to the Individual Defendants; (4) the Complaint's prayer for class damages against the SCCOE is dismissed with leave to amend; and (5) the Complaint's prayer for punitive damages against the SCCOE is dismissed without leave to amend. The Plaintiff will file any amended complaint within 21 days of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2rfyj5fk from Leagle.com. SOUTH STATE: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 26 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATOYA LASHAY FLUDD and WANDA SUE BUTCHER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOUTH STATE BANK, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:20-cv-01959-BHH (D.S.C.), Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks entered a second amended conference and scheduling order as follows: -- Motions to join other parties and amend April 26, 2022 the pleadings shall be filed no later than: -- Supplementation under Rule 26(e) July 28, 2023 will be due no later than: -- Depositions of any designated experts Aug. 28, 2023 will be completed no later than: -- Discovery shall be completed no May 26, 2023 later than: -- Mediation shall be completed in Aug. 14, 2023 this case on or before: -- Any class certification motion Sept. 26, 2023 should be filed no later than: -- The Plaintiff's brief shall be due by: Sept. 26, 2023 -- The Defendant's opposition will be Oct. 27, 2023 South State Bank, based in Winter Haven, Florida, is an American bank based in Florida and a subsidiary of South State Corporation, a bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43aUDTh at no extra charge.[CC] SPACE 86 CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Galindo Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS DANIEL MARTINEZ GALINDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. SPACE 86 CORP. (d/b/a SPACE MARKET); and PANG GI LEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02818 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Galindo was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker. SPACE 86 CORP. own, operate, or control a supermarket, located at New York, NY 10024, under the name "Space Market." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ST LUKE'S UNIVERSITY: Jennings Sues Over Unfair Insurance Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA JENNINGS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. LUKE’S HEALTH NETWORK, INC. t/d/b/a ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL, ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA and ST. LUKE'S UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01229 (E.D. Pa., March 30, 2023), arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. On or about Oct. 29, 2021, St. Luke's University Health Network (SLUHN) instituted a written, company-wide policy pursuant to which all employees would supposedly be charged an additional $1,100.00 per year over their 2021 rate for coverage under SLUHN's self-sponsored and self-funded group health insurance beginning on Jan. 1, 2022. In its new policy, those employees who are (or become) fully vaccinated or who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons can "earn" a "premium discount" equal to the $1,100.00 increase. The intended effect of this portion of the policy is to eliminate the premium increase for these employees thereby keeping their premiums the same as in 2021. Ms. Jennings alleges that the said policy unlawfully discriminates against her and the proposed Class Members solely because their sincerely held religious beliefs prevent them from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. She claims that the intended effect of this policy is to pressure unvaccinated employees with religious exemptions into getting vaccinated against COVID-19. Ms. Jennings is currently employed by SLUHN as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) at Forks Township Care Now in Easton, Northampton County, PA. She has been employed by SLUHN since approximately Dec. 1, 2017. SLUHN is a Pennsylvania not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates a network of hospitals, outpatient facilities, labs, and urgent care centers in eastern Pennsylvania and Warren County, New Jersey. Its principal place of business is located at 801 Ostrum Street, Bethlehem, PA. SLUHN regularly does business in Pennsylvania under the fictitious names "St. Luke's Hospital," "St. Luke's Hospital of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania," and "St. Luke's University Health Network." The Plaintiff is represented by: William P. Mansour, Esq. 961 Marcon Blvd., Suite 425 Allentown, PA 18109 Telephone: (610) 321-3536 Facsimile: (610) 798-1345 E-mail: wpm@themansourfirm.com -and- Philip A. Downey, Esq. P.O. Box 408 Stroudsburg, PA 18360 Telephone: (610) 470-5111 Facsimile: (610) 813-4579 E-mail: downeyjustice@gmail.com STERICYCLE INC: ISCO False Ads Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- INTERNATIONAL STEM CELL CORPORATION, a California corporation, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. STERICYCLE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV40655 (Filed Dec. 28, 2022), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 3, 2023. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02497 to the proceeding. The Complaint sets forth two causes of action: (1) a purported violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, and (2) a purported violation of the California False Advertising Law. ISCO is a publicly traded biotechnology company with a powerful new stem cell technology called parthenogenesis which uses unfertilized eggs, and promises to significantly advance the field of regenerative medicine by addressing the problem of immune-rejection. Stericycle specializes in collecting and disposing regulated substances, such as medical waste and sharps.[BN] The Defendants is represented by: Nathan M. Saper, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 Facsimile: (213) 891-8763 E-mail: nathan.saper@lw.com - and - Timothy B. Hardwicke, Esq. Brian P. Borchard, Esq. GOODSMITH GREGG & UNRUH LLP 150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 322-1980 Facsimile: (312) 322-0056 E-mail: thardwicke@ggulaw.com bborchard@ggulaw.com STEWARD HEALTH: Doe Wiretapping Suit Removed to D. Mass. -------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM LLC, Case No. 2384CV00174-BLS1 (Filed Jan. 23, 2023), was removed from Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 3, 2023. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-10711 to the proceeding. The complaint filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe challenges the legality of actions Steward has taken in connection with pursuing the government's directives. Doe's Complaint asserts claims for Violation of the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, Violation of Massachusetts Privacy Statutes, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Doe alleges that Steward "is a private physician-owned healthcare network" and "operates 10 hospitals in Massachusetts." Steward owns and operates hospitals and provides medical care to patients. As such, Steward has been subject to the federal government's directives to build a nationwide health information technology infrastructure.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Howard M. Cooper, Esq. Ingrid S. Martin, Esq. Ian J. Pinta, Esq. TODD & WELD LLP One Federal Street, 27th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-720-2626 E-mail: hcooper@toddweld.com ipinta@toddweld.com TOP GOLF: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Capistrano Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN CAPISTRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOP GOLF INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-012176 (Fla. Cir., April 3, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. TOP GOLF LNC. is a company that provides entertainment venues featuring golf games. Defendant is organized and incorporated under the laws of Deleware and maintains its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com aravindran@hedinhall.com TWITTER INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unpaid Overdue Bills -------------------------------------------------------------- Clare Duffy of CNN of Newshub reports that a group of Twitter vendors on April 4, 2023 filed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the company has failed to pay tens of thousands of dollars in overdue bills. The four firms -- captioning services company White Coat Captioning, consulting group YES Consulting and public relations firms Cancomm and Dialogue México -- allege that Twitter is in breach of their contracts and has yet to pay bills ranging from around $40,000 to $140,000 for services they provided the company last year. April 4, 2023's lawsuit, which was filed in California Northern District Court and first reported by CNN, refers to the companies suing Twitter as "small businesses without the resources, time, and money to litigate these claims on their own." The lawsuit comes as new Twitter owner Elon Musk attempts to slash costs after buying the company for $44 billion, a significant amount of which came from debt financing. It also adds to the growing list of legal actions Twitter is facing from landlords, business partners and former employees claiming the company has failed to pay what they are owed since Musk's takeover. Twitter is also facing lawsuits from at least one landlord claiming it has missed rent payments, a private jet company for unpaid bills for executive flights and an event production company who said Twitter failed to pay it after canceling the "Chirp Conference" it had been set to organize in November after Musk took over the company. The latest suit was filed by Shannon Liss-Riordan, who has also filed four proposed class action lawsuits and hundreds of arbitration demands on behalf of Twitter employees laid off following Musk's takeover in pursuit of additional severance they allege they were promised by the company prior to Musk's takeover. Some former workers have also alleged sex and disability discrimination and other issues, which the company has argued in court are without merit. Twitter has moved to dismiss many of the lawsuits in court. Twitter, which fired much of its media relations team last fall, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the new lawsuit. "Elon Musk told Twitter vendors that, if they want to get paid, then sue," Liss-Riordan said in a statement to CNN, referring to comments reportedly made by the Twitter owner. "Well, he's now getting his wish. Businesses, like employees, should not have to sue to get paid what they are owed." In the new lawsuit, White Coat Captioning said it provided real-time captioning services for events and classes for Twitter employees who were hard of hearing or spoke languages other than English. The company alleged that it began contacting Twitter in November about overdue and pending invoices for services rendered under a contract signed in March 2022. "Twitter reassured White Coat Captioning it had processed and would pay these invoices, but it never did," the firm alleged in the complaint. In January, the firm claims that Twitter said it was conducting an "additional review" of the invoices. Twitter owes the captioning company around $42,000, according to the complaint. YES Consulting, which said it provided leadership training to Twitter employees per an agreement signed in March 2022, alleges that Twitter owes it approximately $49,000 for services provided between August and November last year. Latin American public relations firm Dialogue also alleges that Twitter has failed to pay approximately $140,000 for eight invoices for services provided in November and December of last year. The vendors are seeking damages in the amount each company is allegedly owed by Twitter, as well as interest. [GN] TWITTER INC: Faces New Class Suit Over Employees' Firings --------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sellers of HRD reports that Twitter Inc is facing a new lawsuit accusing the social media company of laying off contract workers without notice following the acquisition of the company by Elon Musk last year. The proposed class action, filed in San Francisco federal court, claims that Twitter laid off numerous workers employed by staffing firm TEKsystems Inc without providing the 60 days of advance notice required by U.S. and California law. "The employees Twitter paid through TEKsystems were not temporary employees," according to the suit. Instead, they were routinely told they would have the opportunity to become direct Twitter employees, and "are part of the same mass layoffs affecting employees directly employed by Twitter," it continued. The contract workers concerned argue they were a "contingent workforce" with the same duties as employees and thus deserved the same notice period (there is currently a bill being considered that would extend the notice period substantially.) This is the latest in a string of lawsuits against Twitter, with five other cases currently pending in the same court. These lawsuits allege that the company violated labor laws by targeting female workers for layoffs and discriminating against employees with disabilities. Twitter has consistently denied these allegations. In November of last year, Twitter laid off approximately 3,700 employees, or half of its workforce, as part of a cost-cutting measure following its acquisition by Musk, who paid $44 billion for the social media platform. Since then, hundreds more employees have resigned. The case highlights the ongoing legal battles faced by Twitter, as it contends with a range of accusations regarding its treatment of employees. Musk himself has also been found to have trigger fingers when it comes to his personal tweets. The New Orleans-based 5th US circuit court found he violated federal labor law after tweeting that employees would lose stock options if they joined a union. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.) was established on August 5, 1886, and is located in the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco. The court has jurisdiction over the following California counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma. The court has 14 judges, with Richard Seeborg serving as the Chief Judge. The court hears cases in its courtrooms in Eureka, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. Ismail Ramsey serves as the U.S. Attorney and Mark Kolc is the acting U.S. Marshal. The court's official website is www.cand.uscourts.gov. [GN] UNITED AIRLINES: Class Cert. Discovery in Sambrano Due August 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO ET AL., v. UNITED AIRLINES INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order regarding class certification and Discovery as follows: 1. Class certification discovery shall August 24, 2023 be completed on or before: 2. The Plaintiffs' initial designation April 10, 2023 of class discovery experts shall be filed on or before: 3. The Defendant's responsive designation April 24, 2023 of class certification experts shall be filed by: 4. The Defendant's brief in opposition Oct. 23, 2023. to class discovery shall be filed on or before: 5. If necessary, Plaintiffs’ reply brief Nov. 6, 2023. shall be filed on or before: United Airlines. is a major American airline headquartered at the Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zDj9PI at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED OF OMAHA: Nieves Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN NIEVES, individually, and on behalf of the class, v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01415-H-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Marilyn L. Huff, entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the issue of whether the "Statutes apply to United's policies in force as of January 1, 2013." This issue has already been decided by the California Supreme Court in McHugh. 12 Cal.5th at 220. Additionally, the Plaintiff seeks to certify the issue of whether "United's admitted failure to comply with the Statutes rendered its terminations ineffective." The Plaintiff has failed to establish that certification of such an issue would materially advance the disposition of the litigation as a whole given the varied factual questions that underlie United's compliance with the Statutes. Accordingly, certification is not appropriate under Rule 23(c)(4). On July 6, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a class action suit in San Diego Superior Court. One month later, United removed the case to Southern District of California Court. On October 18, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of herself and a purported class of similarly situated individuals, asserting claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, bad faith, and unfair competition. In June 2016, Plaintiff purchased a whole life insurance policy from United that insured the life of her son. The Plaintiff is the owner and sole beneficiary of the Policy. The Plaintiff set up an automatic monthly payment to pay the Policy premium. Based on the McHugh decision, the Plaintiff seeks to certify following class: "All vested owners and beneficiaries of life insurance policies issued or delivered by Defendant in California, and which, after January 1, 2013, were lapsed or terminated for nonpayment of premium without Defendant first providing all the protections required by Insurance Code Section 10113.71 and 10113.72." The Plaintiff excludes from the Class all the class members in the prior certified case of Bentley v. United of Omaha." The Plaintiff’s putative class includes 41,856 individuals with United life insurance policies that lapsed after January 1, 2013. The class includes 21,458 individuals with policies that were issued before January 1, 2013, and 20,398 individuals with policies that were issued after January 1, 2013. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3miPfNs at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Class of Undergrads Certified in Ninivaggi ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, PENNY NINIVAGGI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, Defendant. HANNAH RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, Defendant, Case Nos. 20-cv-1478-SB, 20-cv-1693-SB (D. Del.), Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. After the pandemic hit and classes went online, a group of students and parents sued U. Delaware, alleging that what they got was worth less than what they paid for. They claimed breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion on behalf of all people who paid tuition or fees for students enrolled in U. Delaware for the spring 2020 semester. Previously, Judge Bibas dismissed the class' conversion claims but let their implied-contract and unjust-enrichment claims survive. Matters have been whittled down further since then: The parent Plaintiffs stipulated to voluntarily dismiss their claims. And the rest of the Plaintiffs stipulated to dismiss claims that arose from fees they paid to U. Delaware. So, the only claims left are for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment stemming from U. Delaware's keeping the Plaintiffs' full tuition payments. The Plaintiffs now move to certify a class of "all undergraduate students enrolled in classes at the University of Delaware during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition." U. Delaware says that before ruling on this motion, Judge Bibas must first decide any pending Daubert motions. Judge Bibas disagrees. In moving to certify their class, he says the Plaintiffs did not rely on expert testimony. Nor does he find expert testimony "critical" to assess whether the class meets Rule 23's requirements. So, he certifies the class without deciding the Daubert motions. Before Judge Bibas gets to certification, he deals with a threshold matter: standing. U. Delaware previously argued that parents lacked standing to sue the school because they had not suffered an injury in fact. Judge Bibas rejected that argument. Now, U. Delaware says the students also lack standing. To have standing, the Plaintiffs must show (1) an injury in fact that is (2) fairly traceable to the defendant and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Judge Bibas holds that they have shown all three. First, the Plaintiffs suffered an injury in fact. They had a contract with U. Delaware, which U. Delaware allegedly breached. A breach of contract gives rise to standing. The latter two standing requirements, traceability and redressability, are also satisfied. U. Delaware caused the Plaintiffs' injury by moving classes online. And Judge Bibas could redress that injury by awarding damages or ordering restitution. So, the Plaintiffs have standing to sue. With standing out of the way, Judge Bibas considers an implicit requirement of class certification: that the class be ascertainable. To be ascertainable, a class must be objectively defined, and there must be a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for figuring out who falls within it. This class meets both criteria, Judge Bibas holds. First, the class of students enrolled in U. Delaware in the spring 2020 semester who paid tuition is objectively defined. Both enrollment and payment are verifiable facts. Second, there is a reliable way to figure out who is in the class. U. Delaware has financial records showing which students paid some amount of tuition for the spring 2020 semester. Before Judge Bibas may certify a class, the Plaintiffs must show four more things: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. He finds that (i) the class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable; (ii) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (iii) the class representatives' claims and defenses are typical; and (iv) the representatives will fairly and adequately protect class interests. The final Rule 23(a) factor asks whether the class is adequately represented by both named Plaintiffs and class counsel. U. Delaware says the class falls short on both. Judge Bibas disagrees. Because the Plaintiffs seek damages, they must also satisfy Rule 23(b)(3). They must first show that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. They must also show that "a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Again, the Plaintiffs prevail on both, Judge Bibas holds. Because the existence of an implied contract is amenable to class-wide proof, it is a common question. So is the breach of that contract. And, a class action will be superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Last, Judge Bibas appoints Bursor & Fisher, which has taken the lead in the litigation since consolidation, the sole Lead Counsel. In sum, because the Plaintiffs show standing, ascertainability, the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, Judge Bibas certifies their class. And because the class will benefit from a single firm's taking the lead, he appoints Bursor & Fisher, which meets the Rule 23(g) requirements, the sole Lead Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9m63jj from Leagle.com. Robert J. Kriner, Jr. -- rjk@chimicles.com -- Scott M. Tucker -- scotttucker@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Sarah N. Westcot -- swestcot@bursor.com -- Joshua D. Arisohn -- jarisohn@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., New York, New York; Christopher P. Simon -- csimon@crosslaw.com -- CROSS & SIMON, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for Ninivaggi, et al. Christopher P. Simon, Michael L. Vild -- mvild@crosslaw.com -- CROSS & SIMON, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Blake G. Abbott -- blake@akimlawfirm.com -- Eric M. Poulin -- eric@akimlawfirm.com -- Roy Willey -- roy@akimlawfirm.com -- ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Robert J. Kriner, Jr., CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for Russo. James D. Taylor, Jr. -- James.taylor@saul.com -- Charles E. Davis, Marisa R. De Feo -- marisa.defeo@saul.com -- SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for the Defendant. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Faces Suit Over COVID-19 Campus Lockdown ---------------------------------------------------------------- Randall Chase of Action News reports that a lawsuit against the University of Delaware over its campus shutdown and halting of in-person classes because of coronavirus can proceed as a class action on behalf of thousands of students who were enrolled and paid tuition in spring 2020, a federal judge has ruled. March 31, 2023's decision came just days before a scheduled hearing this week on the university's request for the judge to rule in its favor without a trial. That hearing has been postponed indefinitely. In his ruling, Judge Stephanos Bibas rejected the University of Delaware's argument that the plaintiffs, who accuse the school of breach of contract and unjust enrichment, lacked standing to sue. The university also argued unsuccessfully that it is impossible to know who actually paid tuition because some students may have used outside sources like scholarships. "Those students, no less than students who paid out of their own pockets, were parties to a contract that U. Delaware allegedly breached," wrote the judge, who noted that the only students excluded from the class would be those who received full rides. According to the ruling, more than 17,000 undergraduates were enrolled at the University of Delaware in spring 2020, and the university collected more than $160 million in tuition. The plaintiffs have argued that, before the pandemic, the school treated in-person and online classes as separate offerings and charged more for some in-person programs than they did for similar online classes. They also noted that the university charged them fees for the gym, student centers, and the health center, sometimes at higher rates than those paid by online students, and that the school kept those fees while denying them the services. The plaintiffs are seeking partial refunds of their spring 2020 tuition, having earlier agreed to dismiss their claims arising from student fees. The university claimed that none of the named plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit paid tuition. "That is false," Bibas wrote. "The named plaintiffs paid tuition, through either loans or cash from their parents." Whether students were part-time or full-time might affect the damages to which they are entitled but does not affect the school's liability, the judge added. Bibas previously ruled that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the school implicitly promised them in-person classes, activities and services. "I anticipate looking at evidence of how U. Delaware advertised itself and whether students were attending classes in person before the pandemic," he said. The judge previously rejected the university's argument that it expressly reserved the right to go online, but he noted March 31, 2023 that the plaintiffs' right to restitution depends on the school's "net enrichment." "If U. Delaware got a greater benefit than the students, then it was probably unjust for the school to keep the students' money, as that enrichment has no basis in a valid agreement," Bibas wrote. "But if an online education in spring 2020 was worth full tuition, then there was no net enrichment." The judge said net enrichment will be measured by taking the amount the university received from each student and subtracting the "fair market value" of the services it provided to each - a calculation he acknowledged will be difficult. The fact that some students may have had better grades in spring 2020 than in previous semesters, or that some joined more clubs or took more advantage of student services than others did, is not relevant in that calculation, he said. "These services are available to all students for the same fixed price. And though students may make more or less (or better or worse) use of them, that does not change their fair market value," the judge wrote. [GN] USAA FEDERAL: Bulls, et al., Seek to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP BULLS, DEAN BRINK, CARMIN NOWLIN, NICHOLAS PADAO, and RAPHAEL RILEY, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, and USAA SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 5:21-cv-00488-BO (D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following class: "All persons who, at any time on or after January 1, 2006 (the "class period"), received reduced interest and/or fee benefits from Defendants on an obligation or account because of an obligor's military service, but excluding persons who have executed a release of the rights claimed in this action. 2. Designating Philip Bulls, Dean Brink, Carmin Nowlin, Nicholas Padao, and Raphael Riley as representative plaintiffs for the Class; and 3. Appointing Smith & Lowney, PLLC and Zaytoun & Ballew, PLLC as counsel for the Class. USAA Federal Savings Bank operates as a full service bank. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o0iO77 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Claire E. Tonry, Esq. Alyssa L. Koepfgen, Esq. SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC 2317 E. John Street Seattle, Washington 98112 Telephone: (206) 860-2883 Facsimile: (206) 860-4187 E-mail: claire@smithandlowney.com alyssa@smithandlowney.com - and - Matthew D. Ballew, Esq. Robert E. Zaytoun, Esq. Paul J. Puryear, Jr., Esq. ZAYTOUN & BALLEW, PLLC 3130 Fairhill Drive, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 832-6690 Facsimile: (919) 831-4793 E-mail: MBallew@zaytounlaw.com RZaytoun@zaytounlaw.com PJPuryear@zaytounlaw.com VETERANS SECURITY: Granberry Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- TERRANCE GRANBERRY, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VETERANS SECURITY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02182 (W.D. Tenn., March 30, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by, among other things, failing to compensate Plaintiff the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay for all hours worked within weekly pay periods. Plaintiff Terrance Granberry was employed by and worked for Defendant as an hourly-paid security guard. Veterans Security Group, LLC is a Tennessee Limited Liability Company with its principal offices located at 3593 Riverdale Road, Suite 109, Memphis, TN. It provides security and protection services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Vandervilt Receives $1MM from Cypres Settlement Fund ------------------------------------------------------------------- Vandervilt University Medical Center on April 4 disclosed that Michael Vandenbergh, co-director of the Energy, Environment, and Land Use Program at Vanderbilt Law School and director of the Vanderbilt Climate Change Research Network, and Tina Hartert, MD, MPH, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center will lead two research projects that aim to identify the barriers to and potential health benefits of adoption of electric vehicles in the Southeastern United States. The studies will be paid for by the Audi CO2 Cy Pres Settlement Fund, which will provide $1 million of total funding over three years. The research funds were granted as part of a class-action settlement of a vehicle emissions case. The settlement allows for money remaining in the fund to be used for environmental research projects. "Electric vehicles will eliminate tailpipe air pollutant emissions from vehicles and reduce energy costs, but we need to understand the specific effects on human health and the environment," said Vandenbergh. "Our research projects will identify the maternal and child health effects of widespread EV adoption and explore the barriers to rapid uptake of vehicles in rural, suburban and urban areas." The first project will examine how the switch from fossil-fuel-powered vehicles to electric vehicles of all types -- cars, trucks, buses and delivery vehicles -- will reduce air pollutant emissions in Tennessee and improve public health. Hartert, who directs the Center for Asthma and Environmental Science Research at VUMC, will work with a team of researchers, including Fulbright scholar Akihiro Shiroshita, a respiratory physician and clinical epidemiologist who holds an M.D. from the Kobe University School of Medicine in Japan and a master's degree in public health from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, to study the maternal and child health effects of vehicle emissions and the potential health benefits of the transition to EVs throughout Tennessee. "Given that Tennessee received a grade of D-minus for the health of mothers and children by the March of Dimes Report Card for Tennessee, understanding the adverse impact of fossil fuel emissions and the potential health benefits of vehicle electrification to our most vulnerable Tennesseans will help us to make progress in improving pregnancy and child health objectives," Hartert said. A second project will examine how social influences, including political polarization, can impede widespread EV adoption in rural, suburban and urban areas. The research team includes Mark Cohen of the Owen Graduate School of Management; Jonathan Gilligan, who directs the Vanderbilt Climate and Society Grand Challenge Initiative, along with law students and postdoctoral fellows at Vanderbilt. Vandenbergh and Hartert hope these projects will serve as models for similar national and localized research projects aimed at examining the benefits of electric vehicles and common barriers to their widespread adoption. "This research will lay the foundation for similar efforts across the U.S. and help create statistical and machine-learning models," Hartert said. "It will also inform public health expectations for conditions caused by fossil-fuel air pollution, such as asthma." [GN] WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadline Stricken ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pileggi v. WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00345 (D.D.C.), Hon. Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an order: -- striking the parties stipulation to continue class certification motion deadline; and -- directing the parties to refile any request for an extension or enlargement of time in compliance with standing order. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory Actions.[CC] WEST THOMAS: Forrett First Amended Complaint Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FORRETT, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. WEST THOMAS PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a GFB, Case No. 5:22-cv-02048-NC (N.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins entered an order granting motion to dismiss first amended complaint with leave to amend. The Court grants leave to amend in the interest of justice, especially given the new case law reported by the parties in their supplemental notices at ECF 36 and 39. Forrett may file a Second Amended Complaint by April 17, 2023. The Second Amended Complaint may not add additional claims or parties without advance leave of Court. If Forrett does not file a Second Amended Complaint, the Court will enter Judgment against him and terminate the case. Because the Court has already concluded that Forrett's CRLA, UCL, and FAL claims fail as inconsistent with the expectations of a reasonable consumer, they also cannot form the “basis of a bargain” giving rise to a breach of warranty claim. Finally, Forrett claims "unjust enrichment" by GFB on behalf of all classes, demanding restitution. In this case, Plaintiff John Forrett challenges labeling representations made on products sold as "The GFB Gluten Free Bites" by West Thomas. Forrett asserts that the products are misleadingly labeled as "Protein Packed" despite not being high in protein. Forrett seeks to represent three classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act: (1) a California Class; (2) a Multi-State Consumer Class; and (3) a Nationwide Class. ¶ 66. The operative First Amended Complaint alleges six claims for relief: (1) violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes on behalf of the Multi-State Consumer Class; (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (3) violations of California's False Advertising Law; (4) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (5) Breach of Express Warranties; and (6) Unjust Enrichment. Forrett brings this case on behalf of three putative classes defined as follows in the FAC: -- California Class "All persons who purchased Defendant’s Products within the State of California and within the applicable statute of limitations." -- Multi-State Consumer Class "All persons in the States of California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Washington who purchased the Products. -- Nationwide Class "All persons who purchased Defendant's Products within the United States and within the applicable statute of limitations period." A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UdrFOC at no extra charge.[CC] WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by April 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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; WILLIAMSSONOMA ADVERTISING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-30,Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter extending the briefing schedule for Perlin's Motion for Class Certification as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Last day to file opposition to Apr. 11, 2023 Apr. 25, 2023 Motion for Class Certification Deadline for Defendants to produce Apr. 27, 2023 Jun. 23, 2023 class certification expert(s) for deposition Last day to filed reply in support Jun. 12, 2023 Jul. 24, 2023 of Motion for Class Certification Hearing Aug. 16, 2023 Aug. 16, 2023 Williams-Sonoma is an American publicly traded consumer retail company that sells kitchenware and home furnishings. A copy of the Parties' dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kns2BU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. Shana E. Scarlet, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Ave No. 2000, Seattle, WA 98101 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 E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com rguite@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com asones@sheppardmullin.com WTB LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Rodriguez et al. Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES RODRIGUEZ, ALEX LOZOYA, ERIC LOZOYA, BENJAMIN LUNSFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WTB LLC D/B/A WT BORING COMPANY LLC, CRAIG MORSE AND MARK JONES, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00393 (W.D. Tex., March 30, 2023), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiffs Rodriguez et al. allege that the Defendants violated the FLSA by, among other things, employing them for a workweek longer than 40 hours but refusing to compensate them at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are employed. They also claim that the Defendants failed to maintain accurate time and pay records. The Plaintiffs were employed as rig operators to work on directional drilling projects all over the US during the period March 2020 through March 2023. WTB is a Texas corporation headquartered at 1201 OIDC Drive, Odessa, Texas. It provides horizontal directional drilling services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dawn R. Meade MEADE LAW PLLC 6575 West Loop South, Suite 500 Bellaire, TX 77401 Telephone (713) 398-0907 Facsimile: (346) 388-0010 E-mail: dawn@meade.law WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Narrows Claims in Kirchner Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ERIC KIRCHNER, ELIZABETH LEE KIRCHNER, and ROBERT GRANT WESTON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, V. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00436-RGA-JLH (D. Del.), the Court entered an order that: -- the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as to Count One and granted as to Count Two. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is denied. Count Two is Dismissed. This putative class action arises out of alleged omissions and misrepresentations made in timeshare sales presentations by Defendant Wyndham. Plaintiffs Steven Eric Kirchner and Elizabeth Kirchner filed their first complaint on March 27, 2020 with co-Plaintiff Nazret Gebremeskel on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. The class allegations were limited to people who signed timeshare agreements in Tennessee and Nevada. The Kirchners sought to represent the class of persons who had signed timeshare agreements in Tennessee, while Ms. Gebremeskel sought to represent the class of persons who had signed agreements in Nevada. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZO1101 at no extra charge.[CC] [*] Clayton Utz Attorneys Discuss New Queensland Class Suit Regime ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Erfurt, Esq., Tim Jones, Esq., and Will Golinelli, Esq., of Clayton Utz, in an article for Lexology, disclosed that it is a new dawn for class actions in Queensland and an increase in class action firms considering commencement in the Queensland jurisdiction is expected. On 22 March 2023, the Supreme Court of Queensland issued Practice Direction No. 8 of 2023 which introduces a new procedure for the management of representative proceedings (also known as class actions) in Queensland. The Practice Direction marks a key reform of the Queensland class actions regime and more closely aligns it with other jurisdictions. The class actions regime in Queensland commenced on 1 March 2017 and is relatively new compared to its interstate and Federal counterparts. The Federal Court enacted a procedure for class actions in 1991. Victoria and NSW followed suit in 2000 and 2010, respectively. Given the Queensland regime has been in its formative stages from a process perspective, it is unsurprising that a total of only nine class actions were filed in Queensland from 2017 to 2019, compared to 93 in Victoria, 61 in New South Wales and 471 in the Federal Court. There are currently 4 class actions on foot in Queensland. Class actions are usually large and complex, and involve numerous interlocutory disputes (such as whether the threshold requirements for a contemplated class action have been met). The Federal Court has traditionally been an attractive forum for class actions given it has a well-developed practice of early and close case management hearings and court oversight. Practice Direction No. 8 of 2023 reflects the maturation of the Queensland regime. That Practice Direction was both issued and commenced operation on 22 March 2023, and repeals Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017. The most prominent update made by the Practice Direction to the Queensland model is the creation of a Class Actions List. Under the Practice Direction: -- the List is managed by two judges with the assistance of a Class Actions List Manager; -- all class actions in the Court's jurisdiction have been allocated to the List and assigned to a Class Actions List Judge to manage and determine all interlocutory applications until the proceeding is ready for trial; -- a trial judge will be allocated to conduct the trial of any common questions that may arise. If necessary, the Class Actions List Judge may make directions for the determination of any remaining questions following the trial; -- a detailed procedure is prescribed for case conferences, the disclosure of any litigation funding agreement (with reasonable redactions of information permitted), interlocutory steps and disputes, mediation and notices to group members. Each of the NSW, Victorian and Federal Court regimes have specialist lists or panels for class actions. The creation of a Class Actions List in Queensland more closely aligns Queensland with the NSW, Victorian and Federal Court regimes. The Practice Direction also highlights Queensland's close following of the NSW model, and some potentially important differences with the Victorian and Federal Court models, which include: -- in Victoria, the plaintiff's solicitor must disclose its costs agreement with the plaintiff to the Court and the other parties (with reasonable redactions of information that may confer a tactical advantage on the other parties permitted). In the Federal Court, this obligation extends only to disclosure to the Court. No such disclosure is required in Queensland; -- to notify the Court of, and manage any "competing" class actions that appear to overlap with the proceeding. No such notification is required in Queensland. It is a new dawn for class actions in Queensland and it is anticipated that there will be an increase in class action firms considering commencement in the Queensland jurisdiction. [GN] [*] Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action Suit in Kansas Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Accounts Recovery reports that a District Court judge in Kansas has granted a defendant's motion to dismiss in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue after accusing a law firm of failing to redact the plaintiff's personal information from an exhibit filed in an underlying collection lawsuit. The plaintiff applied for a personal loan, but never finished the application or received any funds. The defendant, on behalf of the lender, filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff, attaching an exhibit to the complain that listed the plaintiff's bank account number and routing number, as well as her name, address, and phone number, which the defendant failed to redact. The collection suit was ultimately dismissed. The plaintiff filed suit, informing the lender that the exhibit was filed without being redacted, at which point the lender sought to have the exhibit sealed, but alleging that her personal information was publicly available for almost a year. The first strike against the plaintiff was in failing to allege that her personal information had any monetary value, and how that value was lost due to the disclosure of her personal information, noted Judge John W. Broomes of the District Court for the District of Kansas. Strike two was that the risk of having her identity stolen is not enough for her to have standing -- because that allegation is nothing more than conclusory, Judge Broomes wrote. Strike three was the emotional distress claim, which also fell short of conferring standing. ". . . the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently establish that any of her alleged harms are ones that Congress intended to protect against when enacting the FDCPA," Judge Broomes wrote. "Plaintiff, however, fails to identify any authority to suggest that Congress would view the failure to redact a loan agreement filed as an exhibit to a state court petition as an unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt. Further, the court fails to see how this conduct, which Plaintiff has characterized as negligent, could be re-characterized as an unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt. Nor does Plaintiff show that Congress had in view the types of harms she alleges here - lost value of her account number; risk of future harm from disclosure of her account number; or garden variety anxiety and emotional harm from disclosure of her account number - when it passed the FDCPA." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***