/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230418.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 18, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 78 Headlines 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Langosh Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Carner Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: City Water System Alleges Drinking Water Contamination 4 OVER LLC: Faces Rad Suit Over Labor Code Violations AIR ASSAULT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dantzler Suit Alleges ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Class Suit Over ALCL Risk in Netherlands AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Status Quo Order Remains in Stockholder Suit AMERICAN SOCIETY: Baker to File Declaration Attesting Citizenship ANGI INC: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Holden and Maya Allege ARKK FOOD: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Sodium Benzoate ASANTE HEALTH: Discriminates Employees, Thompson et al. Suit Claims ATIRA PROPERTY: Breached Duty of Care to Tenants Following Fire B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Verification Filed in Frank v. B. Riley Suit BAYADA HOME: Ivanovs Appeals FLSA Suit Judgment to 3rd Circuit BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Contraceptive Procedure BEK VENTURES: Fails to Pay Uniform Maintenance Costs, Rebollos Says BPS DRECT: Secretly Share Consumers' Firearm Purchases, Suit Says CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Kirsten Appeals Data Breach Settlement Approval CHURCH & DWIGHT: Charles Sues Over Mislabeled Laundry Detergents CITY WINERY: Faces Chapman Suit Over Nonpayment of Proper Wages COLLINS BUILDING: Faces Machuca Suit Over Breach of Contract CREDIT SUISSE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Set Capital Suit CRYSTAL WINDOW: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Reyes and Lastra Suit Say DILLON CO: Ebersole Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Removed to D. Colo. EARTHSTONE OPERATING: Lechuga Seeks Proper Overtime Payment ELITE LIMOUSINE: Buttar Appeals Ruling in Breach of Contract Suit FEDERAL HOME: Appeal for Securities Class Suit Certification Denied FIA LIQUIDATION: Paalzow Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads FLORIDA: Suit Over Denied Coverage to Proceed as Class Action GEMINI SOLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pack Suit Alleges GEORGE B. HOLMES: Khunaizi Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties GOODS FOR GEEKS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOOGLE LLC: Faces Singh Suit Over Unfair Competition on Display Ads GRANT STONE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GUITAR CENTER: Strehl Suit Removed to C.D. California HABEBE FASHION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De Los Santos Alleges HESAI GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 6 JENKINS RESTORATIONS: Hetterly Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours JM SMUCKER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mislabeled Ground Coffee JOHNSON AND CONROY: Metzgar Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JRK PROPERTY: Anderson Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts KANSAS: Bid for Stay of Discovery in Glendening v. Howard Denied KHAYLIE HAZEL: Martin Wins Bid to Extend Discovery Deadline KOHL'S INC: Dougherty Sues Over Mislabeled Textile Products LARK IN THE MORNING: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LATOURAINE INC: Dunn Suit Removed to C.D. California LEAFFILTER NORTH: Class Settlement in Zilinsky Gets Final Nod LEAFFILTER NORTH: Gumba Suit Removed to D. New Jersey LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH: Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania LIGHTING DESIGN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LINDA K. REYLE REVOCABLE: Metzgar Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIV ENTERPRISES: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Griggs Suit Claims MADICORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chase Suit Alleges MAMMOTH TECH: Plaintiffs Awarded $2.4MM in WARN Class Suit MAPLEWOOD, MO: Webb Class Deal Wins Final Approval; Judgment Issued MCMENAMINS INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 8 MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert Hearing in Drover-Mundy MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Barton Suit MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Black Suit MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Cuddy MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Fieker Suit MDL 2998: Duryea Bid to Certify Class OK'd MELEEO LLC: Reeder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MICHAELS STORES: Pays Wages on Untimely Basis, Van Woglom Alleges MICHIGAN: Suit Seeks to Certify "Non-Michigan Offense" Subclass MINISINK LANES MEMORIAL: Metzgar Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MINT PRINTS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MIRAMAR, FL : Face Class Action Over Improper Water Treatment MISSISSIPPI: Turnage Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal MSG ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Shareholders' Suit Linked to MSG Sphere MYVAPORSTORE LLC: General Pretrial Management Entered in Vachnine NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class Cert. Replies in Sweeney Due April 27 NCB MANAGEMENT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Medina Says NCB MANAGEMENT: Palmer Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania NEOCORTEXT INC: Faces Young Suit Over App’s Misuse of Photographs NEW YORK, NY: Sow Seeks April 30 Extension to File Class Cert Bid NEXO CAPITAL: Wins Bid to Strike Jeong Class Allegations NISSAN SHAPIRO: Court Dismisses Huebner Suit NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California NYC ORGANIC: Garcia-Castillo Seeks Delivery Workers' Proper Wages PANTHER CONCRETE: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Settles CBS, Viacom Merger Class Suit for $122.5M PATCH COLLECTION: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PAYREEL INC: Bernstein Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. PENNSYLVANIA: Williamson Suit Seeks to Certify Class PENUMBRA INC: Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages Under Labor Code PRETTY WOMEN: Nine Former Dancers Join Minimum-Wage Class Action PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Volino RALPHS GROCERY: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Dates OK'd SAMBAZON INC: West Sues Over Acai Products' Deceptive Marketing SASB CORPORATION: Medical Security Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida SAVE MART: N.D. Cal. Denied Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit SAZERAC COMPANY: Zielinski Files Suit in W.D. Michigan SCHWARTZ ENTERPRISES: Osorio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SCRANTON, PA: OKs to Pay $385,000 to Settle Second Trash Fee Suit SHEARER'S FOODS: Has 30 Days to Oppose Moore's Class Cert Bid SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Hours, Johnson Claims SPIRIT AIRLINES: Class Notice Stipulation in Cox Suit Due April 24 SPRUCE POWER: Sarkadi Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices STEWARD HEALTH: Doe Sues Over Alleged Data Privacy Breach TABLE TALK: Oliveira Sues Over Maintenance Staff's Unpaid Wages TESLA INC: Violates Customers' Privacy, Yeh Class Suit Alleges THR PROPERTY: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due April 30 TWITTER INC: Sued Over Breach of Contract, Nonpayment of Bills ULTIMA HEALTH: Drink Mix Misbranded, Scheibe Class Suits Says UNITED KINGDOM: Review of Class Certification Denial in Lewis Nixed UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water VIMEO.COM INC: Faces Pollock Suit Over Subscription's Auto-Renewal WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF: Ewing Bid to Amend Complaint OK'd WELLS FARGO: Fails to Pay Mortgage Consultants' Minimum, OT Wages WEYERHAEUSER NR: Sanchez Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Due April 25 ********* 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Langosh Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- NICK LANGOSH as, Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of EDWARD FRANCIS LANGOSH, deceased v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01372-RMG (D.S.C., Apr. 5, 2023) seeks for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Edward Francis Langosh ("Decedent") was, at the time of death, an adult resident and citizen of Pueblo, Colorado. Decedent regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, the Decedent was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death. The Decedent passed away on May 14, 2021. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Carner Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA CARNER as, Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of RANDALL LEE CARNER, deceased v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01364-RMG (D.S.C., Apr. 5, 2023) seeks for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Accordingly, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Plaintiff Cynthia Carner is the duly-appointed personal representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Randall Lee Carner. Mr. Carner ("Decedent") was, at the time of death, a citizen of Johnston City, Illinois. The Decedent regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, the Decedent was diagnosed with prostate cancer & testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death. The Decedent passed away on approximately December 1, 2020, the suit says. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: City Water System Alleges Drinking Water Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------ COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON d/b/a CHARLESTON WATER SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01357-RMG (D.S.C., Apr. 5, 2023) is a class action arising from the foreseeable contamination of drinking water by the use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) products that contained per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). PFOS and PFOA are fluorosurfactants that repel oil, grease, and water. PFOS and PFOA are also associated with multiple and significant adverse health effects in humans, including, but not limited to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, high cholesterol, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold AFFF/Component Products despite knowing that PFAS are toxic, persist indefinitely, and would be routinely released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by the Defendants, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff and Class members are defined as public water systems (PWSs) that provide drinking water services and which have had their (1) surface and/or groundwater supplies, (2) finished drinking water, and/or (3) treatment plant residuals contaminated by PFAS. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unreasonably dangerous design, manufacture, and sale of AFFF/Component Products containing PFOS, PFOA, the Plaintiff and other Class members have been harmed by, and face the imminent, certainly impending, and substantially heightened risk of future harm related to, PFAS contamination. These alleged damages include: (a) costs and expenses related to investigation, sampling, testing, assessment, and reporting of the extent of PFAS contamination to the Plaintiff and the Class, including their surface and/or groundwater supplies, as well as treatment residuals, resulting from AFFF/Component Products; (b) costs and expenses associated with managing water treatment plant residuals contaminated with PFAS chemicals; (c) costs and expenses related to monitoring systems and programs to assess and evaluate PFAS contamination to Plaintiff and Class members resulting from AFFF/Component Products; (d) costs and expenses related to installation and maintenance of filtration systems to assess and evaluate PFAS contamination to Plaintiff and Class members resulting from AFFF/Component Products; (e) treatment and remediation costs for PFAS-contaminated surface and/or groundwater supplies, water infrastructure, as well as treatment residuals to Plaintiff and Class members resulting from AFFF/Component Products; and (f) additional costs relating to infrastructure modifications and/or upgrades, including design, construction, operation, and maintenance of systems related to PFAS contamination to the Plaintiff and Class members resulting from AFFF/Component Products. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq. Nicolle B. Brito, Esq. Bradley M. Beall, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com dantullis@rgrdlaw.com nbrito@rgrdlaw.com bbeall@rgrdlaw.com - and - F. Paul Calamita, Esq. AQUALAW PLC 6 South 5th Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 716-9021 Facsimile: (804) 716-9022 E-mail: paul@aqualaw.com - and - Andrew Croner, Esq. Patrick Lanciotti, Esq. Nicholas Mindicino, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: acroner@napolilaw.com planciotti@napolilaw.com nmindicino@napolilaw.com - and - Paul J. Napoli, Esq. 1302 Avenida Ponce de León Santurce, PR 00907 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com 4 OVER LLC: Faces Rad Suit Over Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------- ALEX RAD, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 4 OVER, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCVD7319 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated several sections of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately September 2017 through April 2022. He was a non-exempt employee with duties that included operating and fixing machinery. Allegedly, the Defendants violated the Labor Code by, among other things, failing to furnish the Plaintiff with accurate, itemized wage statements and to pay timely wages during employment and after employment separation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, says the suit. 4 OVER, LLC. is a California Limited Liability Company doing business in the county of Los Angeles, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Felipe Gomez, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com felipe@tomorrowlaw.com AIR ASSAULT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dantzler Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JEVONTE DANTZLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. AIR ASSAULT PIZZA, LLC; and ANTONIO C. MURGAS, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00310 (M.D. Tenn., April 7, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Dantzler was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver. AIR ASSAULT PIZZA, LLC owns and operates a Domino store located at Clarksville, TN. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (215) 754-4443 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Class Suit Over ALCL Risk in Netherlands ------------------------------------------------------------ Irvin Jackson of AboutLawsuits.com reports that while continuing to face growing breast implant cancer litigation in the United States, Allergan now faces a class action lawsuit in the Netherlands, which was brought on behalf of about 5,000 women over the manufacturer's failure to disclose the risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), which has been linked to certain large surface area designs sold in recent years. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) is a serious type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which is often aggressive and may spread quickly if not diagnosed promptly. However, researchers have found that women with certain types of breast implants are 40 times more likely to develop the cancer, compared to women without implants. After concerns about the problems emerged several years ago, Allergan issued a breast implant recall for all versions of it's Biocell textured surface design, which was linked to nearly all known cases of BIA-ALCL. The FDA also required manufacturers to provide a black box warning on their products and a number of breast implant cancer lawsuits have been brought by women throughout the U.S., alleging that they may have avoided a diagnosis if proper information about the risks had been disclosed to users and the medical community. The Allergan breast implant lawsuit filed in the Netherlands was brought by the Bureau Clara Wichmann, a women's rights organization, which indicates they are seeking nearly $1 billion (€900 million) in damages for about 5,000 women who received the breast implants, which they now say have put the women at increased risk of BIA-ALCL. The lawsuit seeks damages which would pay for the implants to be removed and for the women to undergo breast reconstruction, as their health insurance will not cover the removal and reconstruction if they are not deemed medically necessary. However, that would mean a BIA-ALCL diagnosis, which the women's group considers too late. The complaint also seeks damages for the women's pain and suffering. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons indicates the worldwide number of reported cases of BIA-ALCL was 1,333 as of late 2022. They also found 35 deaths associated with the condition since it was first detected in 1997. In the United States alone, at least 402 BIA-ALCL cases have been identified, including eight deaths, according to data from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. There have been about 90 such cases reported in the Netherlands. There are currently more than 1,000 Allergan breast implant ALCL lawsuits pending in the U.S. federal court system, each raising similar allegations that the textured design was unreasonably dangerous and defective. [GN] AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Status Quo Order Remains in Stockholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RE: In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. Civil Action No. 2023-0215-MTZ (Del. Ch.), Judge Morgan T. Zurn of the Court of Chancery of Delaware denies the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Lift the Status Quo Order Due to the Parties' Proposed Settlement. On Feb. 27, 2023, the then-parties to the two actions constituting the consolidated matter stipulated to expedited proceedings and a status quo order by which the Defendants agreed not to amend AMC's certificate of incorporation as a result of any vote at the Company's March 14 special meeting, pending the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' forthcoming preliminary injunction motion. That same day, the Court entered an order giving effect to those stipulations and setting a preliminary injunction hearing date for April 27. On April 3, AMC filed a Form 8-K announcing the parties to the consolidated action reached a proposed settlement. The same day, the Plaintiffs filed the Motion. As described in the Motion, the parties agreed that if the Court approves lifting the status quo order, AMC will (1) increase the authorized number of shares of Common Stock, (2) convert the Company's outstanding AMC Preferred Equity Units ('APES') into shares of Common Stock, (3) and effect a 1-to-10 reverse split of AMC equity. Then, AMC's pre-conversion common stockholders would receive one additional share of Common Stock for every 7.5 shares of Common Stock held as of the issuance. The Motion further explains that the Settlement terms contemplate performance before a settlement hearing takes place, and AMC anticipates executing the convergence, and issuance of settlement shares, as soon as practicable after the lifting of the status quo order. It asks the Court to lift the status quo order to allow AMC to implement the issuance, conversion, reverse split, and distribution of common shares before the settlement is noticed to stockholders and approved by the Court. Judge Zurn holds that the parties offer no good cause to lift the status quo order. The Plaintiffs assert the status quo order must be lifted only to permit performance of the settlement agreement, which would allow the putative class members to receive the settlement consideration more quickly and remove significant uncertainty weighing on AMC. That is true in every class action or derivative settlement, and yet the case pauses to follow Rules 23 and 23.1. In the absence of any demonstrated need to reorder the established and purposeful order of operations, Judge Zurn must conclude that harm to the putative class suffered by foregoing Rule 23's required protections of proper notice, opportunity to object, and approval exceeds the benefit of receiving the common stock sooner. The Defendants' proposed premature performance under the proposed settlement is not justified, and so the parties have not shown good cause to vacate the stipulated status quo order. And while the Plaintiffs acknowledge that the parties agree that the stipulated status quo order should be lifted and suggest that the proposed settlement is contingent on lifting the stipulated status quo order, Judge Zurn says such agreement does not rise to good cause in view of his Rule 23 obligations. A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/39bvv88c from Leagle.com. AMERICAN SOCIETY: Baker to File Declaration Attesting Citizenship ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEXANDER C. BAKER, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-11126 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York orders the Plaintiff to file a declaration, attesting to his citizenship and showing cause why the Court can and should exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over his remaining claims. Baker, a musician, brings the putative class action suit pro se against Defendants American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers ("ASCAP") and Broadcast Music, Inc. ("BMI"). He filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, but that court had dismissed most of his claims and then transferred the case here. Shortly thereafter, the Court severed one claim and transferred it to Judge Stanton as related to No. 64-CV-3787, which governs the consent decree between the United States and BMI. Two claims thus remain. First, Baker seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendants owe a fiduciary duty to members of the class by virtue of their role as contractual licensors of songwriters' music. Second, he seeks damages for alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants now move, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss Baker's remaining claims with prejudice. Before Judge Furman can entertain the Defendants' arguments for dismissal, however, it must ensure that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Marquez previously determined that there was federal jurisdiction over the claims -- which are brought under state law -- pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Assuming arguendo that Judge Furman can (and should) exercise jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA, however, he says the operative complaint does not actually establish the minimal diversity required by the statute -- to wit, that Baker is diverse from BMI. That is because Baker fails to allege his citizenship; instead, he states only that he "resides in California." It is well established, however, that a statement of the parties' residence is insufficient to establish their citizenship. Before proceeding further, therefore, Baker must remedy this defect by properly alleging that he is a citizen of a state different than BMI. But assuming that Baker can and does remedy that defect, there is another potential jurisdictional issue, Judge Furman finds. The Defendants argue -- conspicuously, without opposition from Baker -- that a pro se plaintiff may not bring class claims. It is indeed true that a pro se plaintiff cannot assert claims on behalf of third parties. Thus, even if Baker can properly plead the minimal diversity required by CAFA, it may be that his class claims would fail as a matter of law. If the class claims are dismissed on this basis, and Judge Furman were to construe Counts Five and Six to be asserting only individual claims, he says it would raise a separate jurisdictional question. In general, if jurisdiction exists at the time an action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be divested by subsequent events. Significantly, however, courts do not always apply this rule when CAFA is the only jurisdictional hook. If the class claims are dismissed, the question therefore arises whether the Court can -- or should -- exercise jurisdiction over Baker's remaining claims. In light of the foregoing, Judge Furman orders Baker to, within three weeks of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, file a declaration, sworn under penalty of perjury and not to exceed three pages, attesting to his citizenship and showing cause why the Court can and should exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over his remaining claims. Defendants will file any response, not to exceed three pages, one week thereafter. If Baker does not file anything by the deadline, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 80 and to mail a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order to Baker. A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2krcect3 from Leagle.com. ANGI INC: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Holden and Maya Allege ----------------------------------------------------------------- TREVOR HOLDEN, and MARIA MAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANGI INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-012183 (Fla. Cir., 7th Jud., Broward Cty., April 3, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by engaging in unsolicited text messaging to promote its services and premium subscription memberships. The Plaintiffs never provided the Defendant with express written consent authorizing the Defendant to transmit telephonic sales calls to Plaintiffs' cellular telephone number utilizing automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers. The unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiffs harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation, and annoyance. The calls also inconvenienced Plaintiffs, caused disruptions to Plaintiffs' daily life, caused Plaintiffs to waste time dealing with Defendant's unsolicited text message and calls. Additionally, Defendant's unsolicited messages violated Plaintiffs' substantive rights under the FTSA to be free from harassing calls like Defendant's, says the suit. Angi Inc. is a Delaware corporation whose principal office is located in Colorado. Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the state of Florida. The company is a consumer lead generator in the home renovation and repair space. It generates consumer leads and connects those leads with home service contractors. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 N.E. 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 610-5223 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com ARKK FOOD: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Sodium Benzoate ------------------------------------------------------------ John O'Brien at legalnewsline.com reports that Pickle-maker Arkk Food Company wants a federal judge to toss a proposed class action that argues its Wahlburgers dill spears and chips contain sodium benzoate despite being marketed as all natural. Kyle Counts' January lawsuit in Chicago federal court also claims the pickles were marketed as fresh and having no preservatives despite "considerable amounts" of the preservative. Arkk says his complaint is vague and fails to establish his standing to sue under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. "(H)is complaint does not (and cannot) satisfy... heightened pleading requirements applicable to the ICFA and other consumer fraud acts," a March 28 motion to dismiss says. "Plaintiff does not allege that any of the pickles he purchased contained sodium benzoate, pointing only to unrelated test results filed by another party in a separate lawsuit. "Further, he makes all of his material allegations about Defendants' conduct and knowledge on information and belief, which is insufficient under well-established precedent, and in all events he fails to sufficiently allege either the commission of a deceptive act or intent elements of that claim." The chemical test cited by Counts comes from a similar New Jersey lawsuit by Grillo's Pickles, filed Jan. 3. Counts claims the defendants "go to considerable lengths" to mislead consumers into thinking the pickles are all natural and conceal the fact the products contain the chemical preservative. He also claims consumers pay more for the products based on the deceptive labeling and marketing and that pickles with artificial and chemical preservatives usually sell for one to two dollars less than "truly fresh pickles." Counts and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury and all other just relief. They are represented by Kevin Laukaitis of The Laukaitis Law Firm LLC in Philadelphia and Michael Reese of Reese LLP in New York. [GN] ASANTE HEALTH: Discriminates Employees, Thompson et al. Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLEE THOMPSON et al., Plaintiffs v. ASANTE HEALTH SYSTEM, a Public Benefit Corporation, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00486-CL (D. Or., April 4, 2023) is a class action alleging that Asante Health System violated Oregon's state law, ORS 659A.030, and the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of religion. The Plaintiffs claim that Asante committed employment discrimination against them when they were placed on unpaid administrative leave and then were ultimately fired because of the sincere religious convictions that rendered them unable to receive COVID-19 vaccines. The Plaintiffs also assert that Asante treated individuals who sought medical exceptions from the vaccine mandate differently than those who sought religious exceptions. While Asante initially placed everyone to whom it granted religious or medical exceptions on unpaid leave, Asante did not terminate the employment of those who sought medical exceptions after six months, say the Plaintiffs. One of the Plaintiffs, Kimberlee Thompson, is a Protestant Christian who worked as a certified computerized tomography technologist at Three Rivers for nearly 30 years, starting on July 2, 1992. Under the guise of granting accommodations in response to their religious exemption requests, Asante placed most of the Plaintiffs, including Thompson, in an indefinite unpaid leave on or about Oct. 18, 2021, the suit further alleges. Asante is a non-profit public benefit corporation headquartered in Medford, Oregon. It operates hospitals, healthcare clinics, and laboratories throughout southwestern Oregon. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ray D. Hacke, Esq. PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE 317 Court St. NE, Ste. 202 Salem, OR 97301 Telephone: (503) 917-4409 Facsimile: (916) 857-6902 ATIRA PROPERTY: Breached Duty of Care to Tenants Following Fire --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth McSheffrey of Global News reports a proposed class-action lawsuit is alleging that those chose charged with resident safety in a downtown Vancouver SRO did not do enough to prevent the fatal fire that burned it down in 2022. The Winters Hotel went down in flames on April 11 last year, killing 68-year-old Mary Garlow and 53-year-old Dennis Guay. More than 70 people, a women's shelter, and several businesses were displaced from the Gastown heritage building, which was torn down shortly afterward. The proposed class action, filed in B.C. Supreme Court on April 11, 2023, claims the City of Vancouver, Winters Residence Ltd., Atira Property Management Inc., Atira Development Society, and Atira Women's Resource Society, breached their duty of care to tenants. Former Winters Hotel resident Jennifer Hansma is identified as the lead plaintiff in initial, unfiled court documents obtained by Global News. The class action, which has not yet been certified, claims the tenants' perceived lack of "political, economic, or social power" contributed to the disrepair and poor management practices that put them in harm's way during the fire. "No one took steps to reset the sprinkler or fire alarm systems, or replace fire extinguishers," it claims. "The residents had no warnings about the fire and no means to fight it." The lawsuit seeks punitive, general, special and aggravated damages, compensation for past and future loss of income, compensation for health-care costs, and more. None of the allegations have been proven. Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services have previously indicated the fire was "accidental," set off by unattended candles that were left burning in a second-floor unit. Three days before that fire, however, the four-storey Winters Hotel had experienced another fire that was extinguished by the building's sprinkler systems. At the time, fire crews issued a notice of violation to have the fire suppression systems serviced and put the building under a fire watch. The lawsuit claims the Atira defendants, which operated and leased the SRO, did not maintain a "reasonable fire watch" after that incident and did not contact a fire inspection company to reset the sprinkler and alarm systems until the morning of April 11. "The City, Winters Residence, and Atira Defendants knew that, if another fire were to occur before all defects were remedied, residents were likely to suffer catastrophic consequences," it states. "The City, Winters Residence, and Atira Defendants did not take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of another fire or warn residents." The proposed class action further alleges that Atira collected public donations for the displaced residents after the fire, but only distributed a portion of them to those residents, and did so unevenly. In addition to damages, it seeks a public statement to that effect. In an emailed statement, Atira Property Management Inc. and Atira Women's Resource Society CEO Janice Abbott said she hasn't seen the lawsuit yet and Atira will not comment until it has had time to review and consider it. "April 11, 2023, we remember and honour Mary Garlow and Dennis Guay, whose lives were lost last year when fire destroyed the Winters Residence. We are also focused on the tenants affected by the fire; and we extend support to those fighting for justice, while still navigating their own personal loss and recovery," she wrote. "The Winters' fire was one of a number of devastating fires that happened in this community last spring and summer, and that continue to happen daily in the Downtown Eastside. We urge the government to commence the inquest it called for last year, and to speed up its SRO replacement program. We must fix this broken system that continues to put people made most vulnerable at the greatest risk." In its own emailed statement, the City of Vancouver said, "Should the City be served with a class action, we would need to review it before providing any comment." Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services further said it did not have time to comment on April 11, 2023. The lawsuit alleges the city, which is responsible for building inspections, knew the Winters Hotel needed portable fire extinguisher replacements, had non-functioning fire escapes, and locked or obstructed fire exists, prior to the April 11 catastrophe, and failed to ensure they were replaced in time. The municipality held the SRO to a lower standard of safety compliance than other buildings, it adds, and allowed fire code violations to remain undealt with for long periods of time. "The fire spread quickly because of the design of the Winters Hotel and the ventilation fans left by the City," it claims. "If the fire safety systems had been serviceable, the fire would have been extinguished before it spread from unit 206 and none of the residents or visitors would have been injured." Jamie Thornback, a partner at CFM and representative for the plaintiffs, said that in his experience, in a building where tenants are respected, "things are going to get taken care of quickly." "I think the suit is really important because this is a class action which really will give access to justice to the residents of the Winters Hotel," he told Global News. "Often it can be difficult for people who do not have a lot of money to access our justice system, and this class action is an opportunity for them to get that justice and get fair compensation for what happened to them." In a April 11, 2023 news release, plaintiff Hansma said "it's time for answers." "I lost my best friend, my cat, my family heirlooms, gifts from my mother who's passed away. I'll never get anything back," she said. "$500 and a TV aren't enough for any of us to start our lives over again. We've waited long enough for answers from Atira. " At a rally announcing the lawsuit in the Downtown Eastside on April 11, 2023, former tenants of the hotel said they were never properly cared for or compensated by their landlords in the aftermath of the disaster. A woman named Wendy said she "barely escaped" and it was "the most horrible thing. " "As I left, I did not know that the screams I was hearing were my friends dying," she told the crowd. "I got out from the grace of God because Mary lived next door to me and Dennis lived next door to me. "I didn't know how serious it was until I got out and I saw the roof melting, but they hadn't even called the fire department at that point." The BC General Employees' Union (BCGEU), which represents hundreds of people working for Atira Property Management Inc. in the neighbourhood, is supporting the plaintiffs. "We are committed to working with the community and ensuring the workplaces are safe, the homes we live in are safe, secure and healthy for all of us," said executive vice-president Kari Michaels. "We're here with the community to say enough is enough . . . an injury to one is an injury to all." The group held a memorial for the two victims on April 11, 2023, the one-year anniversary of the tragedy. [GN] B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Verification Filed in Frank v. B. Riley Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD FRANK, the Plaintiff, in the lawsuit styled RICHARD FRANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MICHAEL MULLEN and B. RILEY FINANCIAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2023-0381 (Del. Ch., March 30, 2023) filed a verification in connection with the filing of the class action complaint against the Defendants. B. Riley Financial, Inc. is a capital market company, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19899-1680 Telephone: (302) 984-3889 Facsimile: (302) 984-3939 - and - Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 BAYADA HOME: Ivanovs Appeals FLSA Suit Judgment to 3rd Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- SONYA IVANOVS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in their lawsuit entitled Sonya Ivanovs, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bayada Home Health Care Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1-17-cv-01742, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this complaint against the Defendant to seek payment of overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Client Service Managers (CSMs). The Defendant unlawfully classifies all of its CSMs nationwide as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA, says the complaint. On Feb. 27, 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant through an Order entered by Judge Noel L. Hillman. The appellate case is captioned Sonya Ivanovs, et al. v. Bayada Home Health Care Inc., Case No. 23-1568, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 3, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SONYA IVANOVS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP 800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Defendant-Appellee BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE INC. is represented by: Michael D. Homans, Esq. HOMANS PECK 230 Sugartown Road P.O. Box 12, Suite 218 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (215) 419-7477 BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Contraceptive Procedure --------------------------------------------------------------- Aisha Dow of The Age reports that when Tanya Davidson started suffering debilitating symptoms soon after she underwent a new contraceptive procedure with a device called Essure, a gynaecologist told her it was all in her head. When her sex drive suddenly dried up, a GP told her she could improve her libido by painting a wall in her room red. Davidson, a busy mother of four young children, then in her 30s, said she was experiencing excessive bleeding, pain and hair loss so severe that it sometimes came out in clumps. But she said it was an uphill battle to even get her symptoms recognised as real, even though some - such as a face rash - were clearly visible. "I was a healthy woman before this," she said. "[I had] so much energy." Davidson, who lives in Bendigo in Victoria, was among a group of women who travelled to the Victorian Supreme Court in Melbourne on April 11, 2023 for the first day of a class action against six companies alleged to have been involved in Essure's development or distribution. Bayer, a German pharmaceutical company acquired Conceptus, the original manufacturer of Essure, in 2013. As reports of adverse events linked to the irreversible procedure began mounting, Bayer stopped distributing the Essure in Australia in May 2017, citing business reasons. The lead plaintiff in the case is 37-year-old Patrice Turner, who was fitted with the Essure device - two sharp coils inserted into the fallopian tubes - in September 2013 when she was a "fit and active 27-year-old". It’s alleged that after she underwent the irreversible procedure, she developed severe and sharp stabbing pain in her pelvis, had long-lasting periods, sex was painful and that she also experienced fatigue, headaches, joint and muscle pain and nausea. "At times Ms Turner would bleed through her clothes and bed sheets," Turner's barrister, Fiona Forsyth, KC, said. "She saw doctors, [had] ultrasounds and on one occasion attended an emergency department, but no one could give her an answer to her symptoms." Turner had a hysterectomy at the age of 32 to have the coils removed. Bayer continues to stand by the safety and efficacy of Essure. In a joint defence, the six companies, including Bayer Australia and German parent company Bayer AG, said there was no "signature" Essure injury that the women could point to as the cause of their symptoms. They also argued the two principal symptoms said to result from use of the device - chronic pelvic pain and abnormal uterine bleeding - were commonly experienced by women of reproductive age. "Inevitably, a significant number of those women would have suffered from one or both of those conditions in any event," their written defence said. Forsyth said that submission revealed the attitude of Bayer towards group members, arguing the companies couldn't escape liability by writing off problematic effects as "common women's symptoms". If there were any problems, the coils could be removed only by taking out women's fallopian tubes or via a hysterectomy, a major surgery with significant risks, particularly for younger women. Forsyth said the device should have never been invented or placed in women. "It was a bad idea from the start," she said. The trial is set to run 12 weeks, examining the safety of Essure, the sufficiency of warnings given to patients and the quality of studies that were conducted into the device to support its use, which Forsyth said in some instances were failing to record adverse events properly. Davidson continues to experience chronic illnesses including persistent fatigue after having her Essure coils removed in two surgeries in 2016, about six years after she first underwent the procedure. On April 11, 2023, she was accompanied to the court by her 17-year-old daughter, Tahlia. She said she could only ever remember her mother being unwell. "I don't know any different. She's mum. This is just how it is," Tahlia said. "It's not in her head . . . we believe her. We believe what she is doing is right." The trial, which is yet to hear from defence counsel, continues. [GN] BEK VENTURES: Fails to Pay Uniform Maintenance Costs, Rebollos Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUIGI REBOLLOS, on behalf of himself, LUIGI REBOLLOS, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B. E. K. Ventures, Inc., and any other affiliated entities that employed Plaintiff and members of the putative class, Defendants, 651695/2023 (N.Y. Sup., April 4, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the New York Labor Law and the Miscellaneous Industries Wage Order by, among other things, failing to pay Plaintiff the reimbursement for the cost of maintaining uniforms. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant at their Union Square UPS Store location at 511 6th Avenue, New York, NY in 2019 and continued until February 2023. He worked at three different UPS Store locations owned and managed by Defendant. He alleges that the Defendant violated the NYLL by failing to pay timely wages. B. E. K. Ventures, Inc. is a domestic business corporation with a service of process address at 575 Lexington Avenue 31st Floor, New York. It owns and operates at least 11 separate UPS Stores in New York State. [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 E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com BPS DRECT: Secretly Share Consumers' Firearm Purchases, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action claims Bass Pro Shops and subsidiary Cabela's secretly send website visitors' personal data, including information about firearm purchases, to Facebook without consent. According to the 17-page lawsuit, the outdoor equipment retailers have violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping Act by installing a piece of code on BassPro.com and Cabelas.com that secretly discloses website visitors' electronic communications and personal information to Facebook. The complaint says that this code, called the Facebook tracking pixel, records which pages a visitor views or what buttons they click as they navigate either website, allowing the social media giant to identify which products a person viewed or bought on BassPro.com and Cabelas.com. The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, claims the defendants disclosed to Facebook without his knowledge, consent or express written authorization that he had bought a Henry Big Boy Classic Centerfire Lever-Action Rifle - .45 Colt from Cabelas.com in December 2021. The case alleges that the tracking tool also disclosed the plaintiff's name, address and Facebook ID, a string of numbers that anyone can use to access an individual's corresponding Facebook profile. Per the suit, the defendants have unlawfully exposed consumers' identities, website activities and firearms purchases in violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. When it comes to advertising, "Facebook can target users so effectively because it surveils user activity both on and off its site," the case states. "This allows Facebook to make inferences about users beyond what they explicitly disclose, like their 'interests,' 'behavior,' and 'connections.'" As the complaint tells it, Facebook compiles the information it receives from websites like BassPro.com and Cabelas.com in a dataset that advertisers can then use to target people who have already shown interest in their business. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Pennsylvania who has a Facebook account and visited either Cabelas.com, BassPro.com or both. [GN] CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Kirsten Appeals Data Breach Settlement Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs AVIVA KIRSTEN, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated February 22, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled In re California Pizza Kitchen Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 8:21-cv-01928-DOC-KES, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The consolidated cases (In re California Pizza Kitchen Data Breach Litigation, Master File No. 8:21-cv-01928-DOC-KES) claim California Pizza was responsible for the increased risk of identity theft stemming from the Data Security Incident and asserts claims including: (i) negligence; (ii) negligence per se; (iii) declaratory judgment; (iv) violation of the New York General Business Law; (v) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (vi) violation of California's Consumer Records Act; (vii) violation of California's Consumer Privacy Act; (viii) breach of implied contract; (ix) breach of confidence; (x) bailment; and (xi) violation of state data breach statutes. The Consolidated Cases seek, among other things, payment for persons who were injured by the Data Security Incident. On May 2, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for settlement approval of preliminary approval of class action settlement which the Court granted on June 30, 2022 through an Order entered by Judge David O. Carter. On October 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of class action settlement. On February 22, 2023, Final Judgment and Order was entered by Judge Carter granting Plaintiffs' motion for settlement approval, and awarding attorney fees award, expense, reimbursement, and service to Representative Plaintiffs. The Court awarded Class Counsel $800,000 in fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses. The Court found this amount to be fair and reasonable. Payment shall be made pursuant to the procedures in Section 5(a) of the Settlement Agreement. The Court further awarded Service Awards of $2,000 to each of Plaintiffs Kansas Gilleo, Sydney Rusen, Esteban Morales, Douglas Wallace, Brett Rigas, and Evencio Diaz. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Aviva Kirsten, et al. v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., Case No. 23-55288, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 30, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Aviva Kirsten and Jeremy Pittman Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 6, 2023; -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 28, 2023; -- Transcript is due on May 30, 2023; -- Appellants Aviva Kirsten and Jeremy Pittman opening brief is due on July 7, 2023; -- Appellee California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. answering brief is due on August 7, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants AVIVA KIRSTEN and JEREMY PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON AND GARBER, LLP One N Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 - and - Theodore Walter Maya, Esq. Christopher Stiner, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 - and - Seth Adam Meyer, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN, LLC 150 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-5220 Defendant-Appellee CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, INC. is represented by: Michael Grimaldi, Esq. Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 633 W 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 599-7761 CHURCH & DWIGHT: Charles Sues Over Mislabeled Laundry Detergents ---------------------------------------------------------------- Akili Charles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02528 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023), alleges that Church & Dwight Co. is engaged in "executional greenwashing" by claiming that its Arm & Hammer Clean Burst laundry detergent is environmentally-friendly and safe to human health. Moreover, Church & Dwight Co. violated the Consumer Fraud Acts of the State and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. An independent testing from Bureau Veritas in 2022 discovered 4.28 parts per million of 1,4-Dioxane, a heterocyclic organic compound, formed from the addition of ethylene oxide. As detergent based on the well-known Arm & Hammer Baking Soda, the label describes this product as being "The Standard of Purity." However, in light of containing 4.28 ppm dioxane, this representation is misleading, because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded this chemical is an impurity in household and industrial detergents, due to its occurrence as a by-product in ethoxylated emulsifiers, says the suit. Church & Dwight Co. Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Ewing, New Jersey, Mercer County. It is a leading consumer goods company that sells detergents under the Arm & Hammer brand. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com CITY WINERY: Faces Chapman Suit Over Nonpayment of Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- KE'MON CHAPMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY WINERY NY - PIER 57, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02778 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by, among other things, by failing to pay the Plaintiff the proper minimum wages and overtime compensation. Ke'Mon Chapman was employed by City Winery as a food service worker from July 2022 until March 2023. City Winery NY - Pier 57, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and operates City Winery restaurant and 2 adjacent concert venues on New York's Pier 57 in Manhattan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Denise A. Schulman, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 COLLINS BUILDING: Faces Machuca Suit Over Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL MACHUCA and MICHAEL LEWIS, for and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLLINS BUILDING SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 651676/2023 (N.Y. Sup., April 4, 2023) alleges that the Defendant breached the contracts by failing to pay or failing to ensure that the Plaintiffs were paid the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits for all labor performed by them at MetroTech dating back to March 2017. The Plaintiffs performed various types of exterior and interior building cleaning and maintenance work at MetroTech as employees of Defendant. Collins Building Services, Inc. is a foreign business corporation duly authorized to do business within the State of New York, with its principal location at 24-01 44th Road, Long Island City, New York. The company is engaged in the commercial cleaning and maintenance business. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com - and – Mahir Nisar, Esq. Susan Ghim, Esq. Casey Wolnowski, Esq. NISAR LAW GROUP, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (646)889-1011 E-mail: mnisar@nisarlaw.com sghim@Nisarlaw.com cwolnowski@nisarlaw.com CREDIT SUISSE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Set Capital Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Credit Suisse Group AG, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated March 16, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled SET CAPITAL LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG , CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a JANUS HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02268, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York City. Plaintiffs Set Capital LLC, Stefan Jager, Aleksandr Gamburg, and Apollo Asset Limited bring this securities class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and purchasers, acquirers, sellers, and redeemers of VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes who were damaged thereby, against Defendants Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG, and Credit Suisse International, and Credit Suisse's CEO, Tidjane Thiam, and CFO, David R. Mathers, alleging claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. On March 16, 2023, Judge Analisa Torres entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' July 1, 2022 motion to certify class and appointment of class counsel; and denying Defendants' October 14, 2022 motion to exclude expert testimony. Specifically, Defendants' motion to exclude Joshua Mitts' testimony was DENIED; Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Securities Act Class was GRANTED; Plaintiffs' motion to appoint class counsel of the Securities Act Class was GRANTED; Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Misrepresentation Class was DENIED, without prejudice to refiling by alternative class representatives and counsel by May 15, 2023; and Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Manipulation Class was DENIED, without prejudice to refiling by alternative class representatives and counsel by May 15, 2023. The appellate case is captioned as Credit Suisse Group AG v. Set Capital LLC, Case No. 23-462, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 30, 2023.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Credit Suisse Group AG, et al., are represented by: Herbert Scott Washer, Esq. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 32 Old Slip New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 701-3435 Plaintiffs-Respondents Set Capital LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 88 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-0177 CRYSTAL WINDOW: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Reyes and Lastra Suit Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX REYES and CARLOS LASTRA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRYSTAL WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02578 (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by, among other things, failing to pay Plaintiffs the required overtime pay of time and one-half for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Alex Reyes began his employment with Defendant in October 2017 and remains employed while Plaintiff Carlos Lastra's employment period is from October 17, 2017 to July 11, 2022. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to follow the FLSA's overtime provisions in regards to the way in which overtime pay is calculated based on the regular hourly rate of pay, the Plaintiffs allege. Crystal Window & Door Systems, Ltd. is a domestic limited liability company, organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. It operated and continues to operate a window and door manufacturing company at 31-10 Whitestone Expressway, Flushing, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com DILLON CO: Ebersole Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Removed to D. Colo. ---------------------------------------------------------------- KACEY EBERSOLE, individually and on behalf all similarly situated persons v. DILLON COMPANIES, LLC, Case No. 2023CV30353 (Filed Jan. 31, 2023) was removed from the District Court of Denver County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on April 5, 2023. The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00845-SKC to the proceeding. The complaint includes claims alleging violation of the Colorado Wage Act, violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and Civil Theft under C.R.S. section 18-4-405. The Complaint defines a putative class of "all of Defendant’s hourly employees worked for the Defendant in Colorado from the 2022 introduction of the new payroll/timekeeping software through final judgment." This putative class definition encompasses approximately 27 weeks, to date, and includes 23,539 individuals, which includes 20,565 current employees of Defendant and 2,974 former employees of Defendant." Dillons is a grocery supermarket chain based in Hutchinson, Kansas, and is a division of Kroger.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jacob M. Rubinstein, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 707 17th Street, Suite 3100 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 479-3872 E-mail: jr@rubesq.com - and - Mark A. Knueve, Esq. Robert A. Harris, Esq. George L. Stevens, Esq. Trina L. Edwards, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Telephone: (614) 464-6400 E-mail: maknueve@vorys.com raharris@vorys.com glstevens@vorys.com EARTHSTONE OPERATING: Lechuga Seeks Proper Overtime Payment ----------------------------------------------------------- GREG LECHUGA, individually and for others similarly situated v. EARTHSTONE OPERATING, LLC d/b/a EARTHSTONE ENERGY, Case No. 4:23-cv-01237 (S.D. Tex., April 3, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by, among other things, misclassifying Plaintiff and other day rate workers as independent contractors and for failing to pay them overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. Mr. Lechuga worked for Earthstone as a drilling consultant from approximately January 2022 until February 2023. Earthstone classified Lechuga as an independent contractor and paid him a flat rate for each day he worked, regardless of the total hours he worked in a day or week, and failed to pay him overtime, says the Plaintiff. Earthstone is a domestic limited liability company that maintains its headquarters in The Woodlands, Texas. The company engages in the acquisition, development and operation of oil and natural gas properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com ELITE LIMOUSINE: Buttar Appeals Ruling in Breach of Contract Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs SHAHID BUTTAR, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SHAHID BUTTAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE LIMOUSINE PLUS, INC., FIRST CORPORATE SEDANS, INC., GUY BEN ZION, AMIR BEN ZION, SHAFQUAT CHAUDHARY, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 651088/2019, in the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action alleges (i) breach of contract and/or unjust enrichment, (ii) violations of New York General Business Law, including violations of the Franchise Disclosure Act, (iii) violations of the Freelance Isn't Free Act, and (iv) fraudulent conveyance under various sections of the New York Debtor & Creditor Law, arising out of Defendants' business relationship with Plaintiff(s). The case seeks damages in excess of $3,000,000. On March 29, 2022, Judge Melissa A. Crane entered an Order that the motion by Defendants Elite Limousine Plus, Inc. and Shafquat Chaudhary to dismiss the claims asserted by Plaintiffs Shimon Asol, Viorel Sirbu, Arthur Nace, Shair Jawaid and Roman Stasintchouk and to dismiss the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth causes of action asserted against them is granted to the extent of: (1) dismissing the first, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth causes of action of Plaintiffs Shimon Asol, Viorel Sirbu, Arthur Nace and Shair Jawaid; (2) dismissing the third, eighth and tenth causes of action; (3) dismissing the seventh cause of action with leave to replead in conformity with the record of July 28, 2021; and (4) the balance of the motion is otherwise denied. The first, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs Shimon Asol, Viorel Sirbu, Arthur Nace and Shair Jawaid and the third, eighth and tenth causes of action asserted by the remaining plaintiffs are dismissed as against Defendants Elite Limousine Plus, Inc. and Shafquat Chaudhary. The seventh cause of action asserted against Defendant Elite Limousine Plus, Inc. is dismissed with leave to replead in conformity with the record of July 28, 2021 within 15 days after service of this order with written notice of entry. The appellate case is captioned as Shahid Buttar, et al. vs. Elite Limousine Plus, Inc., et al., Case No. 2023-01624, in the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on March 30, 2023.[BN] FEDERAL HOME: Appeal for Securities Class Suit Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel of Reuters reports that you have to give points for creativity to an Ohio pension fund that lost big when Freddie Mac's share price nosedived at the beginning of the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007. Faced with a decision denying class certification in the fund's long-running securities fraud case against the government-sponsored housing finance giant (formally known as Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp), plaintiffs' lawyers for the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System came up with a novel strategy to speed up their class certification appeal even after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused interlocutory review. The strategy worked at first: The fund managed to persuade the trial judge overseeing the case and a 6th Circuit motions panel to allow them to move ahead with the appeal, despite the daunting obstacle of 2017 precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court in seemingly similar circumstances. But the fund's luck ran out last week. A 6th Circuit merits panel ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, citing that 2017 Supreme Court precedent, Microsoft Corporation v. Baker. In essence, 6th Circuit Judges David McKeague, Amul Thapar and Joan Larsen agreed with Freddie Mac's argument that the fund's tactic was nothing more than the sort of "inventive ploy" prohibited by the Supreme Court. Both Freddie Mac, through a spokesperson, and Ohio fund lawyer Bill Markovits of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco declined to comment on the 6th Circuit decision. But it's worth taking a look at how Markovits and co-counsel from Strauss Troy tried to maneuver out of gridlock after more than a decade of litigating a class action accusing Freddie Mac of misrepresenting its exposure to subprime mortgages. U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson of Youngstown, Ohio, denied class certification in 2018, ruling, among other things, that the fund could not show the alleged fraud's impact on Freddie Mac's share price through its theory that the alleged deception kept Freddie's shares trading at inflated prices. The fund's lawyers tried to persuade the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review Pearson's class certification decision, noting that the appeals court had already endorsed the viability of the fund’s price maintenance, or "materialization of risk," theory when it revived the case in 2016. Those arguments failed. In 2019, the 6th Circuit refused to grant interlocutory appeal of the class certification denial. That left the fund in a pickle. Plaintiffs' lawyers believed there was no viable case -- even for the Ohio fund as an individual shareholder -- without the price-impact theory. But Freddie Mac and the former executives also named as defendants seemed to be in no hurry to move for summary judgment. The case basically sat around for a year after the 6th Circuit said it wouldn't hear the interlocutory class certification appeal. So plaintiffs' lawyers asked Pearson to enter summary judgment sua sponte, without waiting for a defense motion. Pearson did so in 2020. Citing 6th Circuit precedent from 2018's Innovation Ventures LLC v. Custom Nutrition Laboratories LLC, the trial judge said it would be "perverse" to require the fund to litigate a theory it considered to be frivolous solely to preserve its right to appeal. Judgment in hand, the Ohio fund once again asked the 6th Circuit to review Pearson's class certification decision, but this time as an appeal from a final decision, not a discretionary review. Freddie Mac's lawyers at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius howled in protest. They urged the 6th Circuit to dismiss the appeal, accusing the fund of "manufacturing" a final judgment. The fund's tactics, Morgan Lewis said, were not materially different from those at issue in the Supreme Court's 2017 Microsoft ruling. In that case, as you may recall, the Xbox owners who filed a design defect class action tried to speed up review of the dismissal of their classwide claims by voluntarily ditching their individual claims with prejudice. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' "voluntary dismissal tactic" may have been an "inventive litigation ploy," but was an unacceptable end-run around the rule granting appellate courts discretion over requests for review of class certification decisions. Freddie Mac's arguments failed to sway a 6th Circuit motions panel. In a split ruling, the panel majority agreed with the trial judge's interpretation of the 2018 Innovation Ventures precedent and refused to toss the appeal. In dissent, Judge Richard Griffin said the Supreme Court's Microsoft case "clearly controls," so the appeal must be dismissed. The merits panel agreed with Griffin in last week's decision, concluding that the Ohio fund's strategy of "requesting summary judgment in Freddie Mac's favor" raised the same concerns that the Supreme Court cited in the Microsoft decision. By pushing for a final judgment before Freddie Mac filed a summary judgment motion identifying all potential appellate issues, the 6th Circuit said, the fund had left open the prospect of "protracted litigation and piecemeal appeals." The fund's tactic would also give plaintiffs a one-sided advantage, wrote McKeague, because "we can think of no situation where a class action defendant would ask a district court to enter summary judgment against itself." And finally, the 6th Circuit said, its holding from Innovation Ventures and preceding cases is not relevant because those rulings did not involve class actions. The Supreme Court's Microsoft decision, McKeague wrote, is the final word on attempting to circumvent the rules for interlocutory class certification review. It's not clear what will happen next in the case. The 6th Circuit sent the litigation back to the trial judge, Pearson, so if the fund does not ask for en banc review, it will presumably have to keep litigating until Freddie Mac moves for summary judgment. The 6th Circuit did suggest in its conclusion that Pearson might want to revisit some of the "significant issues of law" at stake in the fund's appeal. Who knows? Maybe the fund's creativity will end up paying off after all. [GN] FIA LIQUIDATION: Paalzow Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- CARL PAALZOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIA LIQUIDATION COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-012145 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April 1, 2023) is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant sent: (1) text message advertisements that promoted Defendant's services and products without transmitting to the recipients' caller identification service a telephone number that was capable of receiving telephone calls and that connected to either the telephone solicitor or the Defendant; and (2) automated text message advertisements without obtaining Plaintiffs' prior express written consent. FIA Liquidation owns and operates Fiorella Insurance, which services people throughout Florida and the rest of the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com FLORIDA: Suit Over Denied Coverage to Proceed as Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Saunders - News Service of Florida of WLRN reports that a judge has cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit alleging that Florida's Medicaid program has violated federal laws by denying coverage for incontinence supplies for adults with disabilities. U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard issued a 37-page decision granting a request by attorneys for two women and the organization Disability Rights Florida to handle the case as a class action. While it is not clear how many people the case could affect, the decision cited one estimate that at least 480 Medicaid beneficiaries a year turn 21 and lose coverage for incontinence supplies that they received as children. "Here, AHCA's (the state Agency for Health Care Administration's) policy categorically excluding incontinence supplies for persons over the age of 21 from Medicaid coverage applies generally to the proposed class," Morales Howard wrote. "Moreover, plaintiffs seek a declaration that this policy violates federal law and a permanent injunction prohibiting AHCA from continuing to implement this policy. If plaintiffs were to succeed in their challenges, such injunctive and declaratory relief would be appropriate with respect to all members of the class." The lawsuit, filed in July in federal court in Jacksonville on behalf of Duval County resident Blanca Meza and St. Johns County resident Destiny Belanger, contends that the state is violating federal Medicaid law and laws including the Americans with Disabilities Act. It said the state provides incontinence supplies, such as briefs, diapers and underpads, for Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21 and for certain adults, including people in nursing homes. But the lawsuit said the state stopped providing the supplies to Meza and Belanger after they turned 21, though they are incontinent and unable to care for themselves. As an example of their disabilities, the lawsuit said Meza "is diagnosed with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, muscle spasticity, neuromuscular scoliosis and partial epilepsy. " "Plaintiffs are medically fragile adults each with bladder and bowel incontinence," the lawsuit said. "As low-income Florida residents with significant disabilities, they receive their health services through Florida's Medicaid program. Plaintiffs' physicians have prescribed certain incontinence supplies, including briefs and underpads, as medically necessary to treat plaintiffs' incontinence, keep their skin dry and clean, prevent skin breakdowns and infections and maintain their ability to live in the community." The state has fought the lawsuit and the request to make it a class action. In a document filed in September, attorneys for the state argued, in part, that the Medicaid program operates under regulations approved by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "Defendant (the state) has a comprehensive, effectively working plan for providing qualified individuals with necessary services to prevent unnecessary institutionalization," the document said. "Alternatively, any relief the court deems necessary should be limited to narrowly address the harm before it and not unnecessarily affect defendant's otherwise comprehensive, effectively working plan for the delivery of Medicaid services that has been reviewed and approved by CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services)." Morales Howard, in her March 27 decision, said the plaintiffs had met a series of legal requirements to pursue the case as a class action. Those requirements include showing that the legal issues are common to potential class members and that the claims involving Meza and Belanger are typical of the class. "Both Meza and Belanger are adult Medicaid beneficiaries with prescriptions for incontinence supplies that were categorically denied based on their age, " Morales Howard wrote. "Meza and Belanger both live at home and their treating physician believes it is in their best interest to remain there. While the precise medical and financial circumstances of each plaintiff may be unique, as will be true of all class members, Meza and Belanger's claims are entirely typical of the claims of class members generally." While the case will move forward as a class action, it remains far from being resolved, Morales Howard, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush, issued an order in February that said a trial is scheduled in January 2024. [GN] GEMINI SOLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pack Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN PACK and JONATHAN PEREZ, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEMINI SOLAR LLC, SKYCHARGE SOLAR LLC, and OH SOLAR LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01156-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, March 31, 2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful policy related to failing to pay non-exempt employees for overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Plaintiffs Justin Pack and Jonathan Perez were hired by the Defendants as electricians who provided installation services from August 2021 and from October 2021, respectively. The Defendants are providers of solar energy equipment and services, providing equipment and installation for residential and commercial customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Sabo Friedmann, Esq. Peter G. Friedmann, Esq. Casey D. Mayell, Esq. Dominick A. Kocak, Esq. THE FRIEDMANN FIRM LLC 3740 Ridge Mill Drive Hilliard, OH 43026 Telephone: (614) 610-9756 Facsimile: (614) 737-9812 E-mail: Rachel@TFFLegal.com Pete@TFFLgal.com Casey@TFFLegal.com Dominick@TFFLegal.com GEORGE B. HOLMES: Khunaizi Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against George B. Holmes, et al. The case is captioned as HOSSAM KHUNAIZI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GEORGE B. HOLMES, MARTIN S. MCDERMUT, and MICHAEL J. FOX, Case No. 2023-0400 (Del. Ch., Apr. 5, 2023). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Morgan Zurn. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 - and - Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19899-1680 Telephone: (302) 984-3889 Facsimile: (302) 984-3939 GOODS FOR GEEKS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goods for Geeks, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Goods for Geeks, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02885 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Goods for Geeks -- https://www.goodsforgeeks.com/ -- offers all things costume, cosplay, Halloween, and renaissance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Faces Singh Suit Over Unfair Competition on Display Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNNY SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, ALPHABET INC., and META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02539 (C.D. Cal., April 4, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Cartwright Act, the California Business and Professions Code, and the Unfair Competition Law. The complaint contends that the Defendants monopolized the means to buy and sell display-ad placements, including through secret rigging of ad auctions and anticompetitive agreements imposed on publishers. The Plaintiff in this class action placed online and in-app display and search advertisements using Google's services. He asserts that he paid anticompetitive overcharges due to Google's antitrust violations and, on behalf of a class of similarly situated advertisers, seeks all appropriate relief. Google LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Google LLC maintains an office in Los Angeles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina C. Sharp, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. Mikaela M. Bock, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com mbock@girardsharp.com GRANT STONE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grant Stone, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Grant Stone, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02888 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Grant Stone -- https://www.grantstoneshoes.com/ -- is a privately owned company, making traditional Goodyear-welt boots and shoes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com GUITAR CENTER: Strehl Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Geoffrey Strehl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Guitar Center, Inc., Case No. 23STCV03275 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02603 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Guitar Center -- https://www.guitarcenter.com/ -- is an American musical instrument retailer chain.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: John W McGuinness, Esq. MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS 2049 Century Park East Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 312-4000 Fax: (202) 585-6600 Email: jmcguinness@manatt.com HABEBE FASHION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De Los Santos Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIRELYS ANAZCO DE LOS SANTOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HABEBE FASHION, INC. (D/B/A HABIBI FASHION); and JIHAD IGBARA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02962 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff De Los Santos was employed by the Defendants as a sales associate. HABEBE FASHION, INC. owns, operates, and control clothing retail store, located at Bronx, NY 10452, under the name "Habibi Fashion". 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 HESAI GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 6 ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP of BusinessWire reports that purchasers or acquirers of Hesai Group (NASDAQ: HSAI) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with Hesai's initial public offering conducted on or about February 9, 2023 (the "IPO") that suffered compensable damages have until June 6, 2023 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Hesai class action lawsuit. Captioned Pacella v. Hesai Group, No. 23-cv-02634 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hesai class action lawsuit charges Hesai, its duly authorized representative in the United States, certain of its top executives, directors, and IPO underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Hesai class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-hesai-group-class-action-lawsuit-hsai.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Hesai purports to produce light detection and ranging ("LiDAR") products designed to enable a broad spectrum of applications in the autonomous transportation industry. The Hesai class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's offering documents were false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Hesai's gross margin decrease was caused by a lower in-house utilization rate; and (ii) Hesai's gross margin was 30% for the fourth quarter - which was completed over a month before the date of its amended registration statement. Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material adverse facts omitted from Hesai's offering documents, the price of Hesai American Depositary Shares has fallen substantially below their $19.00 per share IPO price. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Hesai securities pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in connection with Hesai's IPO that suffered compensable damages to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Hesai class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Hesai class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Hesai class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Hesai class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 - the third year in a row Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those three years alone, Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Contacts Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN] JENKINS RESTORATIONS: Hetterly Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours -------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA HETTERLY, KATHLEEN HOTTENSTEIN, and SHAHRAVAN RAFII, individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JENKINS RESTORATIONS, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-CV-00432 (E.D. Va., April 3, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. Allegedly, Jenkins Restorations misclassified the Plaintiffs as exempt employees and failed to pay out overtime hours worked. Also, the Defendants attempted to coerce Ms. Hetterly, Ms. Hottenstein, Ms. Rafii, and those similarly situated into signing a document that would result in the forfeiture of their due wages, says the suit. Ms. Hetterly was employed by Jenkins Restorations as an accounting/payroll specialist in Chantilly, VA. Ms. Hottenstein is a resident of Virginia and was employed by Defendant Jenkins Restorations as HR generalist/benefits administrator in Chantilly. Ms. Rafii is a resident of Virginia and is employed by Defendant Jenkins Restorations as Third Party Administrator in Chantilly. Jenkins Restorations is a commercial and residential restoration company based in and doing substantial business in Fairfax County, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason F. Zellman, Esq. SUROVELL ISAACS & LEVY PLC 4010 University Drive, Second Floor Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 277-9704 Facsimile: (703) 591-9285 E-mail: JZellman@SurovellFirm.com JM SMUCKER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mislabeled Ground Coffee ----------------------------------------------------------------- In RE: FOLGERS COFFEE MARKETING LITIGATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-00226-BP (W.D. Mo., Apr. 6, 2023), the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have sold their Folgers ground coffee products based on the representation that they contain enough ground coffee to make up to a specific number of servings, however, by following the Defendants' own definitions and instructions, the Products do not contain enough ground coffee to make the number of servings represented or even close to it. By way of example, the 30.5 oz. canister has a net weight of 865 grams. One tablespoon of ground coffee -- approximately 5 grams, so 1200 grams of ground coffee is needed to make 240 servings [240 tablespoons x 5 grams]. Therefore, it contains only 72% of the amount of ground coffee required to make up to 240 cups of coffee [865 / 1200 x 100%]. This is equivalent to approximately 173 cups of coffee. Thus, it is impossible for the Product to contain enough ground coffee to make anywhere close to "240 6 fl oz cups" of coffee, as promised by Defendants. Thus the Defendants’ representation that the 30.5 oz. canister "MAKES UP TO 240 6 FL OZ CUPS" is false, deceptive, and misleading, the suit alleges. The conduct is a classic and unlawful bait-and-switch scheme that causes unsuspecting consumers to spend more money for less than the advertised amount of coffee they believe they are purchasing, the Plaintiff claims. In April 2020, Plaintiff Ashton purchased the Folgers Classic Roast, 30.5 oz. product and the Folgers Black Silk, 24.2 oz. product from a Stater Bros. market in Beaumont, California, for her own personal use. Plaintiff Ashton would have paid significantly less for the Products had she known that the Products did not contain enough ground coffee to make the represented number of cups of coffee. Had Plaintiffs and other consumers known the truth (i.e., that the Products do not contain enough coffee to make the specified number of servings), they would have paid less for them, or would not have purchased them at all. As a result, the Plaintiffs and other consumers have been deceived and have suffered economic injury, the suit further asserts. The Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals who purchased Defendants' falsely and deceptively labeled Products during the statute of limitations period. Folgers Coffee is a brand of ground, instant, and single-use pod coffee produced and sold in the United States, with additional distribution in Asia, Canada and Mexico. It forms part of the food and beverage division of The J.M. Smucker Company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tim E. Dollar, Esq. DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com sbraden@carlsonlynch.com kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com - and - Lubna M. Faruqi, Esq. Timothy J. Peter, Esq. Nina M. Varindani, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: lfaruqi@faruqilaw.com tpeter@faruqilaw.com nvarindani@faruqilaw.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 Facsimile: (866) 503-8206 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com JOHNSON AND CONROY: Metzgar Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson and Conroy Agency Inc. The case is styled as Leo J. Metzgar, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Johnson and Conroy Agency Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02916 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Johnson & Conroy Agency Inc. -- https://jandcins.com/ -- provides a wide range of insurance options to the Port Jervis, NY area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW LLC 1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11757 Phone: (516) 388-7611 Email: DJ@BellLG.com JRK PROPERTY: Anderson Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Emily Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc., Utility Billing, Inc., Tewksbury Apartments Property Owner, LLC, Case No. 2384-CV-00357 was removed from the Suffolk Superior, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-10746-FDS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. JRK Property Holdings -- https://jrk.com/ -- is a Los Angeles based real estate holding and property management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Yasi, Esq. YASI & YASI, P.C. Two Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Phone: (978) 741-0400 Email: john.yasi@yasiandyasi.com - and - Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 373 Winch Street Framingham, MA 01701 Phone: (508) 872-1261 Email: kquat@quatlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Mathilda McGee-Tubb, Esq. Thomas H. Wintner, Esq. MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, PC One Financial Center, 42nd Flr. Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 348-4404 Email: msmcgee-tubb@mintz.com twintner@mintz.com KANSAS: Bid for Stay of Discovery in Glendening v. Howard Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JESSICA GLENDENING, as next friend of G.W.; AUDRA ASHER, as next friend of L.P.; COLIN SHAW, as next friend of C.B. and N.K.; and LAURA VALACHOVIC, as next friend of E.K., Plaintiffs v. LAURA HOWARD, Secretary of Kansas Department of Aging and Disability Services, in her official capacity, MIKE DIXON, State Hospitals Commissioner, in his official capacity, and LESIA DIPMAN, Larned State Hospital Superintendent, in her official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 22-4032-TC-GEB (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas: a. grants the Plaintiff's Motion for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference; and b. denies the Defendants' Motion for a Stay of Discovery. The Plaintiff filed the case as a class action on behalf of individuals, who are detained prior to trial, and court ordered to undergo either a competency evaluation and/or competency restoration treatment pursuant to K.S.A. Section 22-3202 and/or K.S.A. Section 22-3303. They allege the Defendants subject them to unconstitutional, unlawful, and harmfully long wait times for competency evaluations and competency restoration treatment. The Plaintiffs bring their claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging deprivation of substantive and procedural due process and cruel and unusual punishment, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132 (Americans with Disabilities Act), and violations of Sections 1 and 18 of the Kansas Constitution. Upon filing the case, the Plaintiffs also immediately filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The motion became ripe on Aug. 8, 2022. However, on Oct. 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a surreply with additional evidence in support of their motion for preliminary injunction. At the time of the scheduling conference for the preliminary injunction, the Defendants represented they would be filing a motion to stay discovery. No motion to stay was filed and the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion requesting a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 scheduling conference. In response, the Defendants oppose a scheduling conference and moved the Court to stay discovery until the court has ruled on the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Birzer says there is no pending dispositive motion in the case. Nevertheless, the Defendants argue their response to the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction alleges a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim, and based upon those arguments, the Court could, sua sponte, dismiss the case in its entirety. The Defendants do not cite any authority for their stay request based upon the possibility the Court could dismiss the Plaintiffs' case sua sponte. The general policy in the District of Kansas is to move forward with discovery even with a pending dispositive motion. Judge Birzer is not convinced a stay of discovery is appropriate when there is no pending dispositive motion and based upon the mere possibility of a sua sponte dismissal. For these reasons, she grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 16 Scheduling Conference and denies the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery. The Court will issue a separate order regarding planning and scheduling. A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4uhx4nut from Leagle.com. KHAYLIE HAZEL: Martin Wins Bid to Extend Discovery Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW MARTIN ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFF V. KHAYLIE HAZEL YEARNING LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.), Hon. Judge Jane M. Virden entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion for extension of time to conduct additional discovery. The Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery deadline and to conduct additional discovery is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of this Order to conduct the discovery. The Plaintiff shall have 30 days after expiration of the discovery period to file a motion for class certification. In its December 9, 2022, order, the Court set forth the standard applicable to class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In the instant case, according to the Plaintiff, for purposes of having the proposed classes certified, factual development, and therefore, discovery, is needed only as concerns one of the four factors listed in Rule 23(a), namely, numerosity. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff seeks discovery beyond that relevant and proportional to the issues pertinent to a decision on class certification. As this Court reasoned in its December 9, 2022, order, "unless and until a class has been certified, discovery as to the damages such class might be entitled to is premature. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not permitted leave to conduct such discovery (except as might be relevant to his own individual claim for damages)." The Plaintiff brings this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of the "DNC Class" and "Time Class" as defined as follows: -- the DNC Class: "Plaintiff and all persons within the United States (1) to whose telephone number Defendant placed (or had placed on its behalf) two or more text messages, (2) from four years prior to the filing of the Compliant to the date of certification, (3) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of Defendant's CBD Oil Products (4) in a 12-month period (5) when the telephone number to which the text messages were sent was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry at the time of the messages;" -- the Time Class: The Plaintiff and all persons within the United States (1) to whose telephone number Defendant placed (or had placed on its behalf) two or more text messages, (2) from four years prior to the filing of the Compliant to the date of certification, (3) between the hours of 9:00 pm and 8:00 am local time, (4) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of Defendant's CBD Oil Products (5) in a 12-month period. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kvw1fQ at no extra charge.[CC] KOHL'S INC: Dougherty Sues Over Mislabeled Textile Products ----------------------------------------------------------- LORRAINE DOUGHERTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOHL'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00456 (E.D. Wis., April 7, 2023) alleges that the Defendant misrepresented its textile products under store and national brands made from bamboo fibers when they consist mainly of materials other than bamboo. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the representations of the Defendant are misleading because the Products are not made of bamboo fibers, but rayon, a manufactured fiber composed of regenerated cellulose. Rayon is made by taking purified cellulose from a cellulose precursor and converting it into a viscous solution by dissolving it in one or more chemicals, such as sodium hydroxide. The labeling and advertising of the Products is contrary to federal regulations which require the fibers be identified with the generic name of rayon. By describing and labeling the Products with the unqualified term, "Bamboo," purchasers will expect all of their fibers are from the bamboo plant, says the suit. The Products were worth less than what the Plaintiff paid, and she would not have paid as much absent Defendant's false and misleading statements and omissions, the Plaintiff added. KOHL'S, INC. operates as a specialty online retailer. The Company offers clothing, shoes, home, kitchen, bedding, and toys. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com LARK IN THE MORNING: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lark In The Morning, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lark In The Morning, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02886 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lark in the Morning -- https://larkinthemorning.com/ -- offers musical instruments and instructional material from all over the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LATOURAINE INC: Dunn Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Taneshia Dunn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LaTouraine Inc. doing business as: Naughty America, Epoch Payment Solutions, Case No. 37-02023-00009326-CU-BC-CTL was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00616-AJB-DDL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. La Touraine, Inc. -- https://www.latouraineinc.com/ -- is an Advertising & Marketing, Advertising, and Marketing and Advertising company located in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com The Defendants are represented by: Michelle Lynn Bains, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 321-6208 Email: michelle.bains@wilsonelser.com - and - Roger G. Perkins, Esq. CLARK HILL LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 500 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 557-0404 Fax: (619) 557-0460 Email: rperkins@mpplaw.com - and - Kristin Housh, Esq. Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq. Sieun J. Lee, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 720-8900 Fax: (858) 509-3691 Email: khoush@sheppardmullin.com spetersen@sheppardmullin.com slee@sheppardmullin.com LEAFFILTER NORTH: Class Settlement in Zilinsky Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zilinsky et al v. LeafFilter North, LLC, Case No. (Court), Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order granting the final approval of the Settlement and enters final judgment as follows: -- The Class approved by this Court, and for which final approval is given, is as follows: "All LeafFilter customers in the United States who appear in LeafFilter's customer care database with a Debris-Related Final Issue Code for their service request during the time period from January 1, 2016 through June 24, 2022;" Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) LeafFilter; (2) any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of LeafFilter; (3) any entity in which LeafFilter has a controlling interest; (4)any officer, director, or employee of LeafFilter; (5) any successor or assign of LeafFilter; (6) any Judge to whom the Litigation is assigned; (7) any person who has resolved or otherwise released their claims as of the date of the settlement; and (8) any Settlement Class Member who opts-out of the settlement. -- Having reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion For Approval of Attorney's Fees Expense Reimbursement, and Class Representative Service Awards, and based upon all previous filings in this action, the Court concludes and orders as follows: (1) Plaintiffs' requested award of Attorney's Fees of $1, 749, 416. 31 is reasonable and, therefore, is awarded; (2) Class Counsel shall be reimbursed $25, 583.69 for these reasonable expenses and costs; and (3) the Court awards service awards of $3, 500 per Named Plaintiff household. The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint against th Defendant in December 2020, alleging that Defendant materially misrepresented that its gutter protection system would not clog or overflow when, in fact, the system was defective and allowed debris to accumulate on top of the gutters. The Plaintiffs assert consumer protection and common law tort claims under various states' laws. The Plaintiffs later filed an Amended Complaint with substantially the same allegations. LeafFilter provides gutter protection solutions. The Company manufactures, sells, and installs gutter guards for homeowners. LeafFilter North serves customers in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43lJqiQ at no extra charge.[CC] LEAFFILTER NORTH: Gumba Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cynthia A. Gumba, also known as: Cynthia A. Schatz-Gumba, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leaffilter North of New Jersey, John Does 1-10, Case No. MER L 000390 23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01979-GC-DEA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. LeafFilter of New Jersey -- https://www.leaffilter.com/offices/leaffilter-of-new-jersey/ -- offers the best gutter guards for your rain gutter.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lewis G. Adler, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER 26 Newton Avenue Woodbury, NJ 08096 Phone: (856) 845-1968 Email: lewisadler@verizon.net The Defendants are represented by: Michelle Lynn Bains, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 321-6208 Email: michelle.bains@wilsonelser.com LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH: Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jane Doe, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-1149 was removed from the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on April 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00585-RDM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Lehigh Valley Health Network -- https://www.lvhn.org/ -- is a healthcare network based in the Allentown, Pennsylvania in the Lehigh Valley region of eastern Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Anne Lucas, Esq. Todd J. O'Malley, Esq. O'MALLEY & LANGAN PC 201 Franklin Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Phone: (570) 344-2667 Fax: (570) 344-6199 Email: mlucas@omalleylangan.com tomalley@omalleylangan.com - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon B. Paris, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3986 Fax: (215) 496-0999 Email: phoward@smbb.com sparis@smbb.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Ste. 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel E. Cummins, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 321-6208 Email: michelle.bains@wilsonelser.com LIGHTING DESIGN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighting Design, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lighting Design, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02892 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lighting Design -- https://lightingdesign.com/ -- sells quality lighting and design products to homeowners, contractors, and interior designers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LINDA K. REYLE REVOCABLE: Metzgar Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Linda K. Reyle Revocable Living Trust, James Demmer Insurance Agency Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02916 (S.. The case is styled as Leo J. Metzgar, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. The Linda K. Reyle Revocable Living Trust, James Demmer Insurance Agency Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-02913-NSR (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. James Demmer Insurance Agency Inc. is an insurance agency in Middletown, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW LLC 1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11757 Phone: (516) 388-7611 Email: DJ@BellLG.com LIV ENTERPRISES: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Griggs Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- TIALEA GRIGGS and MARIA DEL CONSUELO DE ANDA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIV ENTERPRISES, INC. and LUKA IVANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-CV-02089 (N.D. Ill., April 3, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Plaintiffs Griggs and De Anda challenge the unlawful misclassification of them as independent contractors instead of employees. They are now seeking remedies for statutory violations resulting from this misclassification. From approximately November 2022 to March 2023, Plaintiff Griggs made freight deliveries on behalf of and at the direction of LIV in Illinois and other states. On the other hand, Plaintiff De Anda made freight deliveries on behalf of and at the direction of LIV in Illinois and other states from approximately January 2023 to March 2023. By misclassifying delivery drivers as independent contractors, LIV requires the drivers to bear the costs of performing delivery services, including, but not limited to, fuel, cellphone and GPS payments. Allegedly, LIV did not reimburse Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers for incurring necessary expenditures or losses within the scope of their employment for LIV. In addition, LIV also did not frequently pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked at an hourly rate at or in excess of the minimum wage rates established by the FLSA, the suit claims. LIV is a company incorporated in Illinois with its principal place of business in Bollingbrook, IL. It provides freight delivery services throughout the US. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 500 Lake Cook Rd., Suite 350 Deerfield, IL 60015 Telephone. (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com - and – Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com MADICORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chase Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- LEE CHASE; and JUAN YARBROUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MADICORP, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-00436-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff. MADICORP provides industrial staffing solutions nationwide specializing in manufacturing, production, and warehousing staffing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 Email: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com MAMMOTH TECH: Plaintiffs Awarded $2.4MM in WARN Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Theresa Leininger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Mammoth Tech Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00394-JZ (N.D. Ohio), Hon. Judge Jack Zouhary entered an order approving renewed request for default judgment following class certification as follows: -- The Court awards, and judgment is entered, in favor of the Plaintiff Class in the aggregate amount of $2,403,667.98. On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Litigation, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all similarly situated former employees against Defendant to recover 60 days' pay and benefits under the WARN Act of 1988. In the WARN Litigation, the Plaintiff alleges that she, along with nearly five hundred other similarly situated former employees, suffered an employment loss, without cause on their part, as a result of the plant closing ordered by Defendant at its facility located in Defiance, Ohio on or about March 2, 2022. The Plaintiff further alleges that, prior to their terminations, neither Plaintiff nor the Other Similarly Situated Former Employees received written notice that complied with the requirements of the WARN Act. On December 20, 2022, the N.D. Ohio Court entered an Order denying the motion for default without prejudice and permitting Plaintiff to renew the damages request following establishment of Class membership. On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for default, with supporting evidence, following class certification. In the renewed motion, Plaintiff seeks WARN Act pay for herself and each of the Class members, as reflected on the Class spreadsheet. Mammoth Tech is a U.S. Based BPO company that provides outsourcing solutions for some of the world's largest brands! A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40RTaQz at no extra charge.[CC] MAPLEWOOD, MO: Webb Class Deal Wins Final Approval; Judgment Issued ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CECELIA ROBERTS WEBB, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MISSOURI, Defendant, Case No. 4:16 CV 1703 CDP (E.D. Mo.), Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval and accompanying exhibits; the proposed Settlement Agreement; the Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, and accompanying declarations; and all other papers filed in the action. On April 5, 2023, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing to consider the issues presented in the motions and proposed settlement. At that hearing, the Class Counsel and the Defendant's counsel presented information about the implementation of the Settlement, which the Parties entered into on Oct. 18, 2022. On Nov. 18, 2021, the Court certified the Jailed Class, the Narrowed Paid Fines Class, and the Injunctive Class after contested class certification proceedings. It appointed the named Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives and appointed John Waldron, Nathaniel Carroll, and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders, Inc., Andrea R. Gold of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Ryan Keane of Keane Law LLC as the Class Counsel for these Classes. On Nov. 1, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement. It certified an additional Class for settlement purposes, the Remaining Paid Fines Class, and preliminarily appointed Plaintiffs Frank Williams, Cecelia Roberts Webb, and Logan C. Yates, Personal Representative of the Estate of Darron T. Yates, Deceased, as the Class Representatives of that Class. It also preliminarily appointed Nathaniel Carroll, Maureen Hanlon, and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders, Inc., Andrea R. Gold of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Ryan Keane of Keane Law LLC as the Class Counsel for the Remaining Paid Fines Class. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court also approved the form and manner of the Notice Program and set a hearing date to consider final approval of the Settlement. Judge Perry finds that the settlement, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class members, when considering the merits of the Plaintiffs' case, weighed against the terms of the settlement; the Defendant's financial condition; the complexity and expense of further litigation; and the lack of opposition to the settlement. Therefore, she grants the Plaintiffs' Motions for Final Approval and for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. The Settlement Agreement is given final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate for the settlement of the claims of the Class Members. The Remaining Paid Fines Class is certified under Rule 23(a), (b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for settlement purposes only. Plaintiffs Frank Williams, Cecelia Roberts Webb, and Logan C. Yates, Personal Representative of the Estate of Darron T. Yates, Deceased, are appointed as the Class Representatives to represent the Remaining Paid Fines Class. Nathaniel Carroll, Maureen Hanlon, and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders, Inc., Andrea R. Gold of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Ryan Keane of Keane Law LLC are appointed as the Class Counsel for the Remaining Paid Fines Class. The Parties will comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement with the terms of the Settlement being incorporated in the Order and accompanying Judgment. All members of the Settlement Classes, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns are bound by the Final Approval Order and accompanying Judgment. The Settlement Classes are defined as: Jailed Class: All persons who have been jailed by the City of Maplewood for nonpayment of fines, fees, costs, or surcharges, including warrant bonds arising from cases in the Maplewood court, and who (1) were not provided an opportunity to prove indigence prior to jailing; (2) were not considered a danger to the community by notation in Maplewood's file; and (3) were not designated as a flight risk at the time of jailing. Narrowed Paid Fines Class: All persons who paid to the City of Maplewood fines, costs, and/or fees that were assessed without an inquiry into their ability to pay, and who paid such fines, costs, and/or other fees after being arrested and jailed on Maplewood municipal warrants issued for failure to pay or for failure to appear. Injunctive Class: All persons, whether or not such person has ever been jailed, who have paid or currently owe warrant bonds to the City of Maplewood arising from cases in the Maplewood court. Remaining Paid Fines Class: All persons who made a payment of fines, costs, and/or fees to the City of Maplewood that were assessed without an inquiry into their ability to pay, and who paid such fines, costs, and/or fees, and such payment was not a qualifying payment for the Narrowed Paid Fines Class. Attorney fees of $1,083,333.33, costs of $132,365.76, and the Class Representative Service Award payments of $7,500 per Class Representative are fair and reasonable and should be paid from the settlement pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Perry directs the Parties and their counsel to further implement and consummate the Settlement Agreement. No later than 45 days after the Effective Date, Settlement Class Member Payments will be made from the Net Settlement Fund. The Settlement Administrator will issue the Service Awards to the Class Representatives and the award of attorneys' fees and costs to the Class Counsel pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Administration Costs will also be paid to the Settlement Administrator pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Any residual amounts will be disposed of in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including, upon request to the Court, a potential cy pres award to Joe's Place Corporation, an entity that is a nonprofit organization or foundation that offers homeless teenage boys in the Maplewood Richmond Heights School District a caring home environment. Without affecting the finality of the Order and accompanying Judgment for purposes of appeal, the Court retains jurisdiction as to all matters relating to the administration, implementation, consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of this Settlement Agreement and this Order, and for any other necessary purpose. The Order adjudicates all of the claims, rights, and liabilities of the Parties to the Settlement and is intended to be final and immediately appealable. There being no just cause for delay, a separate Judgment will be entered pursuant to Rule 58, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wsbuck8 from Leagle.com. MCMENAMINS INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZANE J. KIRBY, v. McMENAMINS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05168-BHS-MLP, Case No. 3:22-cv-05168-BHS-MLP (W.D. Wash.), Hon. Judge Michelle L. Peterson entered an order modifying pretrial schedule as follows: Event Date Deadline for Plaintiff to file Motion Aug. 8, 2023 for Class Certification and Report of Class Certification Expert: Deadline for Defendant to file Opposition Sept. 5, 2023 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Report of Class Certification Expert: Deadline for Plaintiff to Reply re: Motion Sept. 19, 2023 for Class Certification: Reports of expert witnesses under Oct. 9, 2023 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: All motions related to discovery must be Oct. 9, 2023 filed by this date and noted for consideration no later than the third Friday thereafter: McMenamins is a family-owned chain of brewpubs, breweries, music venues, historic hotels, and theater pubs in Oregon and Washington. A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/418Rlhy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, #205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com - and - Tatiana Hernandez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TATIANA HERNANDEZ, P.C. 315 S Beverly Dr., Suite 504 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 909-4248 E-mail: tatiana@thlawpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher T. Wall, Esq. Jacqueline Middleton, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 E-mail: Christopher.wall@stoel.com Jacqueline.middleton@stoel.com - and - Karen L. O'Connor, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW 9th Ave., Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 E-mail: Karen.oconnor@stoel.com MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert Hearing in Drover-Mundy ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Drover-Mundy et al v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00512 (W.D.N.Y., Filed April 18, 2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the hearing on the motion for class certification of the California class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023. -- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude expert opinions is also extended. -- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response deadlines as appropriate. The Drover-Mundy has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2903). These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York.[CC] MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Barton Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barton v. Mattel, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00670 (W.D.N.Y., Filed May. 22, 2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the hearing on the motion for class certification of the California class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023. -- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude expert opinions is also extended. -- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response deadlines as appropriate. The Barton case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2903). These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. The company has presence in 35 countries and territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC] MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Black Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linda Black v. Mattel, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01083 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 15, 2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the hearing on the motion for class certification of the California class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023. -- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude expert opinions is also extended. -- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response deadlines as appropriate. The Black case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2903). These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. The company has presence in 35 countries and territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC] MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Cuddy ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cuddy v. Fisher Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00787 (W.D.N.Y., Filed June 13, 2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the hearing on the motion for class certification of the California class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023. -- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude expert opinions is also extended. -- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response deadlines as appropriate. The Cuddy case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2903). These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. The company has presence in 35 countries and territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC] MDL 2903: Court to Reset Class Cert. Hearing in Fieker Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wray v. Fieker v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01075 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 14, 2019), Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order continuing the hearing on the motion for class certification of the California class now scheduled for April 13, 2023, until after June 1, 2023. -- The time for plaintiffs to respond to the motion to exclude expert opinions is also extended. -- After June 1, 2023, the court will schedule a conference with counsel to reset the hearing date and motion response deadlines as appropriate. The Fieker case has been consolidated in Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2903). These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Fisher-Price's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly allege that the defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher-Price's April 2019 recall of the RNPS was deficient. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. The company has presence in 35 countries and territories and sells products in more than 150 countries.[CC] MDL 2998: Duryea Bid to Certify Class OK'd ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duryea, et al., v. Agri Stats, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD (D. Minn.), Hon. Judge John R. Tunheim entered an order denying the Defendants' motions to exclude the experts' testimony because each expert report satisfies the less stringent Daubert standard employed at the class certification stage: -- Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is granted. -- Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is granted. -- Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class granted. -- The Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Russell Mangum is denied. -- The Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Michael Williams is denied; and -- The Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Hal Singer is denied. Three classes of pork purchasers asked the Court to certify their classes as part of this multidistrict price-fixing litigation. Each class submitted expert testimony in support of its motion. After conducting the rigorous analysis required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court finds that all three classes satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The Court will therefore certify their damages classes accordingly. The Court also finds that the Commercial IIPPs satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) and will certify their injunctive relief class. Most Consumer IPP class representatives purchased multiple pork products routinely. Therefore, individual consumers are capable of self-identifying using affidavits, which is a permissible means of ascertaining class membership. The suit has been consolidated in RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION (MDL No. 21-2998). The case represents the consolidation of many separately filed actions alleging that the Defendants, among America's largest pork producers and integrators, conspired to limit the supply of pork and thereby fix prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Together, Defendants control over 80 percent of the wholesale pork market. The Plaintiffs allege that, from at least 2009–2018, the Defendants conspired to "fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork. " The Plaintiffs allege that this was accomplished principally "by coordinating output and limiting production with the intent and expected result of increasing pork prices in the United States." This price-raising and fixing allegedly caused Class Plaintiffs to pay artificially inflated pork prices. DPPs bring claims under federal law and ask the Court to certify the following damages class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): All persons and entities who directly purchased one or more of the following types of pork, or products derived from the following types of pork, from Defendants, or their respective subsidiaries or affiliates, for use or delivery in the United States from June 29, 2014 through June 30, 2018: fresh or frozen loins, shoulders, ribs, bellies, bacon, or hams. For this lawsuit, pork excludes any product that is marketed as organic or as no antibiotics ever (NAE); any product that is fully cooked or breaded; any product other than bacon that is marinated, flavored, cured, or smoked; and ready-to-eat bacon." The Commercial IIPP class broadly represents indirect purchasers who are not end users of pork products. Commercial IIPPs bring claims under state laws and ask the Court to certify the following injunctive relief class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and damages class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): -- Proposed Injunctive Class: "All entities that indirectly purchased uncooked pork bacon, or one or more of the following types of raw pork, whether fresh or frozen: loins, shoulder, ribs, hams, or pork chops from defendants or coconspirators for their own use in commercial food preparation in the United States from June 28, 2014 to June 30, 2018. For this lawsuit, pork excludes any product that is marketed as organic and/or no antibiotics ever and any product other than bacon that is marinated, seasoned, flavored, or breaded, but it includes uncooked and cooked ham water added products." -- Proposed Damages Class "All entities that indirectly purchased uncooked pork bacon, or one or more of the following types of raw pork, whether fresh or frozen: loins, shoulder, ribs, hams, or pork chops from defendants or coconspirators for their own use in commercial food preparation in the Repealer Jurisdictions8 from June 28, 2014 to June 30, 2018. For this lawsuit, pork excludes any product that is marketed as organic and/or no antibiotics ever and any product other than bacon that is marinated, seasoned, flavored, or breaded, but it includes uncooked and cooked ham water added products." Lastly, the Consumer IPPs represent end-users of pork products. They are largely individual consumers who purchased pork at allegedly elevated prices indirectly from Defendants. Consumer IPPs bring per se and rule of reason theories against Defendants under various state laws and ask the Court to certify the following damages class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons and entities who indirectly purchased raw pork, bacon, or one or more of the following types of raw pork, whether fresh or frozen: bellies, loins, shoulder, ribs or pork chops from defendants or co-conspirators for personal consumption in the Repealer Jurisdictions10 from June 28, 2014 to June 30, 2018. For this lawsuit, pork excludes any product that is marketed as organic, no-antibiotics ever (NAE) and any product other than bacon that is marinated, seasoned, flavored, or breaded." A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GqkOMf at no extra charge.[CC] MELEEO LLC: Reeder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meleeo, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dominique Reeder, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Meleeo, LLC, Providence Medical Group, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00337441-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 5, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." Meleeo -- https://meleeo.com/ -- specializes in the critical intersection of Revenue Cycle, Quality and Care Management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ivan P. Medina, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 W Olympic Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3614 Phone: 310-553-3600 Fax: 310-553-3603 Email: imedina@nourmandlawfirm.com MICHAELS STORES: Pays Wages on Untimely Basis, Van Woglom Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX VAN WOGLOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02827 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023) seeks to remedy the Michaels' violations of the New York Labor Law against Van Woglom and all other similar manual workers. Mr. Van Woglom was employed by the Michaels as customer experience manager from 2017 through 2018, when he became a cashier/sales associate. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to pay him on a timely basis as required by NYLL. Despite regularly spending more than 25% of his shift performing physical tasks, Van Woglom was compensated by the Defendant on a bi-weekly basis. The Defendant also paid all other manual workers on a bi-weekly basis, the Plaintiff alleges. Headquartered in Irving, Texas, Michaels is a privately held chain of arts and crafts stores. It is one of North America's largest providers of arts, crafts, framing, floral and wall décor, and merchandise for makers and do-it-yourself home decorators. Michaels operates more than 60 retail locations in New York State and employs over 1,000 people in the State, a majority of whom are manual workers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 MICHIGAN: Suit Seeks to Certify "Non-Michigan Offense" Subclass --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOES A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, MARY DOE and MARY ROE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, Governor of the State of Michigan, and COL. JOSEPH GASPER, Director of the Michigan State Police, in their official capacities, Case No. 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying "Non-Michigan Offense" Subclass, defined as: "members of the primary class who, according to Defendants, are or will be subject to sex offender registration under SORA 2021 for a conviction or adjudication from a jurisdiction other than Michigan." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to name Plaintiffs Mary Doe and John Doe G as representatives of the subclass. The E.D. Mich. Court has already certified a class of over 50,000 people who are subject to registration under the latest iteration of Michigan's Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA 2021). The Court also certified several subclasses of registrants who allege distinct harms as a result of being subject to SORA 2021. In May 2022, the Court certified a primary class, defined as all people who are or will be subject to registration under Michigan’s SORA 2021, appointed the named Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointed class counsel. The Court also certified six subclasses, including: the pre-2011 ex post facto subclass, the retroactive extension of registration subclass, the barred from petitioning subclass, the non-sex-offense subclass, the plea bargain subclass, and the post-2011 subclass. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/416GLIg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq. Dayja S. Tillman, Esq. Danial S. Korobkin, Esq. Syeda Davidson, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN 1514 Wealthy SE, Suite 260 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 Telephone: (616) 301-0930 E-mail: maukerman@aclumich.org dtillman@aclumich.org dkorobkin@aclumich.org sdavidson@aclumich.org - and - Paul D. Reingold, Esq. COOPERATING COUNSEL, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN Univ. of Michigan Law School 802 Legal Research Building 801 Monroe Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 Telephone: (734) 355-0319 E-mail: pdr@umich.edu - and - Roshna Bala Keen, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY COOPERATING COUNSEL, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: roshna@loevy.com MINISINK LANES MEMORIAL: Metzgar Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minisink Lanes Memorial Holdings, et al. The case is styled as Leo J. Metzgar, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Johnson and Conroy Agency Inc., LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02918 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Minisink Lanes Memorial Holdings is a bowling alley in New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW LLC 1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11757 Phone: (516) 388-7611 Email: DJ@BellLG.com MINT PRINTS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mint Prints, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mint Prints, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02894 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mint Prints -- https://mintprints.com/ -- provides a hassle free print, design and digital service based in Deerfield beach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MIRAMAR, FL : Face Class Action Over Improper Water Treatment ------------------------------------------------------------- CNW reports that the City of Miramar, which in 2020 was noted as the home to the United States' highest share of Jamaican residents at 15.4%, is in receipt of a complaint filed regarding pinhole leaks found in copper pipes allegedly caused by improper water treatment. Leaky pipes have been shown to cause health issues due to water contamination, as well the spread of mold and fungi. This can cause respiratory issues such as throat, nose and skin irritation, frequent coughing and sneezing, sinus congestion, rashes, fatigue, respiratory infection and even fever. The City's two Water Treatment Plants are regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Samples are collected, tested, and reported on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis, and the water consistently meets regulatory standards. City Manager Dr. Roy Virgin stated, "The City of Miramar values its residents and is sensitive to their concerns regarding copper pipe issues. The City has consistently assured residents and businesses that the water treatment facilities are up to par and does not cause damage to pipes. The case filed is being reviewed by the City Attorney's office, who will respond through the appropriate channels." Currently, the City offers a loan program for residents affected by copper pipe pinhole leaks for a maximum of $10,000 at a one per cent interest rate with a five-year term. In 2021 two workshops were conducted virtually to educate residents on the safety of the City's water and in addition, a dedicated webpage was created with videos, water quality report and FAQs:Miramarfl.gov/CopperPipePinholeLeaks. Water Quality FAQs were done, and an offer was made to residents to schedule in-home testing with follow-ups free of cost. The City of Miramar says it continues to provide safe drinking water that meets or exceeds Federal and State standards and continuously monitors its water facilities and acts accordingly if it becomes aware of any issue that affects its water treatment and quality. Miramar also has one of the country's largest populations of Cubans (8.77%), Colombians (2.51%), Dominicans (1.98%), Haitians (6%), and Trinidadians (1.2%). [GN] MISSISSIPPI: Turnage Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Ray C. Turnage, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order and Judgment dated March 15, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled RAY C. TURNAGE; REVEREND D. FRANKLIN BROWNE; DENNIS D. HENDERSON; CARLOS WILSON; FRED BURNS; CHARLES BARTLEY; CLARENCE MAGEE; LINDA PATRICK-CRAFTON; BARBARA YOUNG; JUANITA J. GRIGGS; and CHERNISE SEAPHUS, Plaintiffs v. SAM BRITTON, Mississippi Public Service Commissioner; CECIL BROWN, Mississippi Public Service Commissioner; BRANDON PRESLEY; and MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00818-CWR-FKB, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson. The Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint against MPC and the Public Service Commissioners on November 21, 2018, and amended their class action complaint on March 14, 2019. The present version alleges that MPC violated their "procedural and substantive due process [rights] under the Fourteenth Amendment" through (1) the March 2013 order increasing rates to construct the Kemper County plant and (2) the "adoption, enactment and enforcement of the interest rate calculation method" governing the Kemper Refund Plan. The Plaintiffs contend that the interest rate calculation method underpaid the Plaintiffs and deprived them of "tatutory interest in the amount of $13.8-$23.5 Million." They also claim that the alleged underpayment constituted a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Plaintiffs then make the following state-law claims against MPC: violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; gross negligence, reckless conduct, and intentional conduct; and bad faith refusal to pay statutory pre-judgment interest. They seek monetary damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. On June 17, 2022, the Mississippi Power Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On March 15, 2023, Judge Carlton W. Reeves entered an Order granting Defendant's motion, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Turnage v. Britton, Case No. 23-60154, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on March 30, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Ray C. Turnage, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ellis Turnage, Esq. TURNAGE LAW OFFICE 108 N. Pearman Avenue P.O. Box 216 Cleveland, MS 38732 Telephone: (662) 843-2811 Defendants-Appellees Sam Britton, Mississippi Public Service Commissioner, et al., are represented by: Justin Lee Matheny, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 550 High Street Walter Sillers Building Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 359-3825 - and - Jason Brent Tompkins, Esq. BALCH & BINGHAM, L.L.P. 1901 6th Avenue, N. Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 226-8743 MSG ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Shareholders' Suit Linked to MSG Sphere ------------------------------------------------------------------ reviewjournal.com reports that Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. announced it has settled a series of lawsuits from shareholders in connection with the rising cost of its MSG Sphere at The Venetian. In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the company said it would pay $48.5 million to four shareholder groups that filed lawsuits in a class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The company did not admit liability in the settlement. The plaintiffs alleged that the MSG Networks board of directors and controlling stockholders breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving a merger with MSG Entertainment in a cost-saving move. Four different shareholder groups filed actions beginning June 29, 2021, and the cases were consolidated October 29, 2021. Since its groundbreaking in September 2018, the 17,500-seat MSG Sphere's cost has nearly doubled to $2.2 billion and is expected to open in September with performances by U2. Construction of the project, which initially was expected to be completed in 2021, was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain disruptions. According to the SEC filing, MSG Networks has a dispute with its insurers over whether and to what extent there is insurance coverage for the settlement. Unless those parties settle that insurance dispute, it is expected to be resolved in a pending Delaware insurance coverage action. In the interim, and subject to final resolution of the parties' insurance coverage dispute, certain of MSG Networks' insurers have agreed to advance $20.5 million to fund the settlement and related class notice costs. The merger between MSG Networks and MSG Entertainment is different from a spinoff announced last month in which a new company, to be known as Sphere Entertainment Co., will oversee the MSG Sphere, MSG Networks and MSG's Tao Group Hospitality businesses.[GN] MYVAPORSTORE LLC: General Pretrial Management Entered in Vachnine ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NESS-LEE VACHNINE, v. MYVAPORSTORE LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02486-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. -- If you are aware of any party or attorney who should receive notice in this action, other than those currently listed on the docket sheet, please notify Courtroom Deputy Tamika Kay at (212) 805-0228 immediately. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZOIBfG at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class Cert. Replies in Sweeney Due April 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sweeney, et al., v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01569 (S.D. Ohio), Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order on motion for extension of time to file response/reply as follows: -- Replies are due by April 27, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) involving employee benefits. Nationwide is a group of large U.S. insurance and financial services companies based in Columbus, Ohio. The company also operates regional headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona; Des Moines, Iowa and San Antonio, Texas.[CC] NCB MANAGEMENT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Medina Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ERNESTO MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. e 2:23-cv-01270 (E.D. Pa., March 31, 2023) brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violations of state consumer protection statutes, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, and injunctive relief claims. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against Defendant for its (i) failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected personally identifiable information, including, without limitation, first and last names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, employment positions, pay amounts, driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers, account numbers, credit card numbers, routing numbers, account balances, and/or account statuses; (ii) failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII; (iii) unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII; and (iv) failure to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members that their PII had been disclosed and compromised due to alleged data breach that took place on February 4, 2023. As a result of NCB's failures and lax security protocols, hackers gained access to NCB's computer systems and/or servers and were able to steal the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. Plaintiff Medina is a resident of the State of California and was notified of the data breach and the impact to his PII by NCB via U.S. Mail in a letter dated March 24, 2023. He alleges that his PII was disclosed without his authorization to unknown third parties as a result of the data breach. NCB Management Services is a national accounts receivable management company that provides account services to companies, such as Bank of America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 399-4770 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: achristina@lowey.com NCB MANAGEMENT: Palmer Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as June Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCB Management Services, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01315-KNS (E.D. Pa., April 5, 2023). The nature suit is stated as Other Contract for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. NCB -- https://www.ncbi.com/ -- is a national accounts receivable management company and debt buyer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Dr., Suite 400 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 477-8380 Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com NEOCORTEXT INC: Faces Young Suit Over App’s Misuse of Photographs ------------------------------------------------------------------- KYLAND YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEOCORTEXT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02496 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the California Right of Publicity Statute, which prohibits and provides statutory damages for the knowing misappropriation of an individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in advertising or soliciting without the individual’s prior consent. Plaintiff Young claims that Neocortext has been commercially exploiting his and thousands of other actors, musicians, athletes, celebrities, and other well-known individuals' names, voices, photographs, or likenesses to sell paid subscriptions to its smartphone application, Reface, without their permission. According to the complaint, Reface application has a free version that generates watermarked "teaser" face swaps. The purpose of these teaser face swaps is to induce users to remove the watermarks by signing up for Reface's PRO subscription and paying a fee of $5.99 per week or $36.99 for life. NeoCortext violated the California Right of Publicity Statute by never asking Young or others similarly situated for their consent to commercially exploit attributes of their identities in these teaser face swaps or the paid PRO version of the Reface application, says the suit. Neocortext, Inc. is a computer software developer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - J. Eli Wade-Scott. Esq. Michael Ovca, Esq. EDELSON PC 50 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jwadescott@edelson.com movca@edelson.com NEW YORK, NY: Sow Seeks April 30 Extension to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sow, et al. v. City Of New York et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08924-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Sow plaintiffs propose an alteration of the current scheduling order which accommodates the current request as follows: Current Date Proposed Date -- Class certification March 31, 2023 April 30, 2023 Motions: -- Response from the City: May 10, 2023 June 9, 2023 -- Reply to City's response: May 31, 2023 June 30, 2023 A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41fA1ry at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan C. Moore, Esq. David B. Rankin, Esq. Luna Droubi, Esq. Marc Arena, Esq. Deema Azizi, Esq. Rebecca Pattiz, Esq. Katherine "Q" Adams, Esq. Regina Powers, Esq. BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, PH/26th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 490-0400 Facsimile: (212) 277-5880 E-mail: jmoore@blhny.com drankin@blhny.com ldroubi@blhny.com marena@blhny.com dazizi@blhny.com rpattiz@blhny.com qadams@blhny.com - and - Wylie Stecklow, Esq. WYLIE STECKLOW PLLC 231 West 96th Street Professional Suites 2B3 NYC, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 566 8000 E-mail: Ecf@wylielaw.com - and - GIDEON ORION OLIVER 277 Broadway, Suite 1501 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 718-783-3682 Facsimile: 646-349-2914 E-mail: Gideon@GideonLaw.com - and - Elena L. Cohen, Esq. J. Remy Green, Esq. Jessica Massimi, Esq. COHEN&GREEN P.L.L.C. 1639 Centre Street, Suite 216 Ridgewood (Queens), NY 11385 Telephone: (929) 888-9480 Facsimile: (929) 888-9457 E-mail: elena@femmelaw.com remy@femmelaw.com jessica@femmelaw.com - and - Masai I. Lord, Esq. LORD LAW GROUP PLLC 14 Wall St., Ste 1603 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (718) 701-1002 E-mail: lord@nycivilrights.nyc NEXO CAPITAL: Wins Bid to Strike Jeong Class Allegations --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNHAN JEONG, v. NEXO CAPITAL INC., et al., Case No. e 5:21-cv-02392-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting Nexo's motion to strike class allegations. The case is a breach of contract and consumer protection case regarding Nexo's Crypto Credit service, which allows users to borrow cash by pledging cryptocurrency as collateral. The Plaintiff Junhan Jeong alleges that Nexo sold cryptoassets that he and others had staked Nexo in violation of Nexo's Borrow Terms & Conditions. Jeong also alleges that Nexo engaged in deceptive advertising. Nexo asks the Court to strike or dismiss Jeong's class allegations for two independent reasons: (1) Jeong's agreement with Nexo bars him from bringing a class action and (2) Jeong's counsel cannot adequately represent a class. In the alternative, Nexo asks the Court to strike Jeong's class allegations against putative class members who do not live in California because they are not subject to California law. Nexo operates a website through which users can access Nexo's "Crypto Credit" service. Using the Crypto Credit service, users can stake any of a variety of cryptoassets as collateral for cash loans. A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KvFZ0K at no extra charge.[CC] NISSAN SHAPIRO: Court Dismisses Huebner Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEVI HUEBNER, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, v. NISSAN SHAPIRO LAW P.C., Case No. 1:19-cv-05747-HG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order: 1. granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss; and 2. dismissing without prejudice to Plaintiff's claim to refiling in state court if appropriate. Accordingly, the violation of the FDCPA is not causally related to Plaintiff's alleged injury. Moreover, the Plaintiff's attempt to analogize Defendant's filing of the holdover proceeding to common law abuse of process likewise fails to establish standing. The Plaintiff Levi Huebner brings this putative class action seeking to recover money damages from Defendant Nissan Shapiro Law P.C. for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Defendant is a law firm engaged in debt collection. In September 2018, the Plaintiff executed a lease for an apartment in Brooklyn. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff permitted another individual, Elie Poltorak, to occupy the apartment. The Plaintiff alleges that his landlord "refused to honor the occupancy of Poltorak" and "orchestrated a scheme to evict Plaintiff for nonpayment." A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41fAsCc at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cedric Gonzales, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Case No. 37-02023-00008438-CU-0E-CTL was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, CA, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 5, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00609-BAS-WVG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation -- https://www.northropgrumman.com/ -- designs, develops, and manufactures various defense electronics and systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Miller, Esq. Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent Charles Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: cmiller@lelawfirm.com jlavi@lelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Amber D. Mckonly, Esq. 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-7520 - and - Jesse A. Cripps, Jr., Esq. Matthew T. Sessions, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Ave., Suite 5200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 229-7792 Fax: (213) 229-6792 Email: jcripps@gibsondunn.com NYC ORGANIC: Garcia-Castillo Seeks Delivery Workers' Proper Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISIDRO ARMANDO GARCIA-CASTILLO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NYC ORGANIC DISTRIBUTION INC., ADNAN ALMERDIAE, and MAGID SALEM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-CV-02543 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt warehouseman and delivery employee from on or about Oct. 4, 2021 until on or about March 14, 2023. He alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him the proper minimum wages and overtime compensation, willfully violating the FLSA and the NYLL. NYC Organic Distribution, Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, with a principal place of business at 527 East 82nd Street, Brooklyn, NY. The company sells and delivers a variety of healthy organic snacks and beverages to, among others, delicatessens, grocery stores and restaurants in New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com PANTHER CONCRETE: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roxana L. Lopez, Gabriel G. Rangel, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Panther Concrete Design LLC, and Miguel A. Mejia, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00227 (M.D. Fla., March 31, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Lopez and Rangel were hired as non-exempted, full-time concrete design laborers approximately between August 01, 2021, and February 28, 2023, or 82 weeks. They assert that they worked more than 40 regular hours per week but Defendants did not pay them for overtime hours. Panther Concrete is a construction company providing concrete coatings services to the construction industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Settles CBS, Viacom Merger Class Suit for $122.5M ------------------------------------------------------------------- corpgov.law.harvard.edu reports that Paramount Global has agreed to pay $122.5 million to shareholders in order to resolve allegations that the CBS-Viacom merger of 2019 was unfair, per a recent filing with the SEC. The $30 billion "controlled transaction" created ViacomCBS, Inc. - the multibillion-dollar entertainment empire that owns well-known television brands such as Paramount, CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, and Showtime - which was later renamed Paramount Global. The lawsuit - filed on behalf of Viacom shareholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery - specifically asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims against Redstone-controlled media company National Amusements Inc. ("NAI") and the members of the special Viacom committee that approved the merger. At the center of the allegations is media mogul Shari Redstone and her "unrelenting" desire to "re-unify" the two "family" businesses and rival the legacy of her late father, Sumner Redstone. For years, Sumner Redstone declared that he did not want Shari Redstone to control Viacom or CBS, as he did not think she was suitable for the job. As Mr. Redstone's health began to deteriorate, however, Ms. Redstone purportedly embarked on a three-year campaign to prove him wrong and become a "media magnate," culminating in the 2019 transaction. During the sale process, Ms. Redstone allegedly insisted that the post-merger company be run by Viacom CEO Robert Bakish. To secure Redstone's governance priorities, the Viacom board allegedly agreed to accept a lower price than what it was worth - $1 billion less than it had bargained for a year earlier. The shareholder complaint specifically alleges the following: NAI was the controlling stockholder of both Viacom and CBS, holding approximately 80% of the Class A voting shares. For years after Sumner Redstone's health worsened in 2016, Shari Redstone removed the governance protections her father put in place, including by replacing subversive directors on the NAI, Viacom, and CBS boards with friends and family. After two failed attempts to combine CBS and Viacom in 2016 and 2018 respectively, Redstone tried again - in the wake of Les Moonves' ouster for sexual harassment allegations - but this time, insisted that Bakish and much of his executive team lead the combined entity. Taking advantage of Redstone's "unshakable insistence" that Bakish be in charge, CBS insisted that Viacom make significant price concessions in exchange for Redstone's governance priorities. The Viacom special committee ultimately capitulated, ceding significant stockholder value to CBS, including value created by synergies. In negotiating the transaction, the Viacom special committee also improperly relied on exchange ratios from public research analyst forecasts that undervalued Viacom and overvalued CBS. As a result, Viacom accepted an implied valuation of $1 billion less than what it had rejected a year earlier before the company's operational turnaround. Beginning on November 25, 2019, four class action lawsuits against Viacom were filed and ultimately consolidated in January 2020. On February 7, 2020, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III appointed the California Public Employees' Retirement System to represent shareholders as lead plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann as lead counsel. In December 2020, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed Robert Bakish as a defendant from the case but kept in the claims against the other named defendants, including Ms. Redstone, ruling the stringent "entire fairness" standard of review was applicable under Delaware law. The inside story of the CBS-Viacom merger, Shari Redstone's relationship to her father, and her vie for power also forms the basis of a new booked called: Unscripted: The Epic Battle for a Media Empire and the Redstone Family Legacy, by James B. Stewart and Rachel Abrams. While the Viacom shareholder action has tentatively resolved, a separate stockholder and derivative action on behalf of CBS shareholders challenging the same transaction is still ongoing in Delaware Chancery. In a 159-page decision in January 2021, Vice Chancellor Slights also ruled CBS shareholders' claims survived defendants' motions to dismiss, but for one disclosure claim. Subsequently, defendants urged for a joint trial for both the CBS and Viacom shareholder actions, but the bid was rejected by Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III who found separate five-day trials would not impinge on litigants' economy. The history of CBS and Viacom are no strangers to shareholder litigation - as the companies have faced a dozen complaints during the last two decades in federal or state courts. While a majority of these cases were ultimately dismissed, it highlights the often factious investor-company relationship with executives maintaining dual-class, super voting shares. One such case led to a $14.75 million settlement resolving #MeToo related allegations of CBS failing to disclose former CEO Les Moonves' behavior of sexual harassment. Once legally resolved, this action will become the fourth largest direct shareholder settlement of all-time litigated in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The three larger settlements include Dell Technologies ($1 billion - scheduled for an April 19, 2023 settlement), Activision Blizzard ($275 million settled on May 20, 2015), and Digex ($165 million settled on April 6, 2001). ISS Securities Class Action Services will continue to closely monitor this high-profile action as it progresses toward an official settlement and communicate updates to its clients and the investment community, as developments occur. [GN] PATCH COLLECTION: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patch Collection, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Patch Collection, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02896 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Patch Collection -- https://patchcollection.com/ -- is the largest licensed patch retailer on the planet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com PAYREEL INC: Bernstein Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEF BERNSTEIN, as an individual and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, v. PAYREEL, INC., a Colorado corporation; ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, a Missouri corporation; 160OVER90; ENDEAVOR OPERATING COMPANY, LLC a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV04502 (Filed Mar. 1, 2023) 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 5, 2023. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02575 to the proceeding. The Complaint is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class defined as: "all individuals in California whom PayReel assigned to work for 160over90, Endeavor and/or Anheuser-Busch that worked as non-exempt employees at any time from four years of the date of the filing of this Complaint through the date of signed order certifying the class." The Plaintiff asserts putative class-wide claims for failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay timely all wages; failure to unlawfully receive wages; failure to provide meal breaks; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide and maintain accurate itemized wage statements and maintain records; failure to pay timely wages upon termination; and failure to pay for necessary expenses. Specifically, the Complaint alleges a "policy, practice and pattern where [employees] were required to perform worked-related tasks off-the-clock, " a "policy, practice and pattern of requiring or pressuring its employees to take late, short, on-premises, interrupted, or no 10-minute rest breaks and/or 30-minute meal breaks at a reasonably practicable time," and alleges that PayReel has "failed to reimburse Class Members and Subclass Members for business expenses incurred for purposes of performing work for the Defendant," says the suit. PayReel provides freelance contractor services for corporate video and media, television and film customers.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq. Timothy B. Nelson, Esq. Kyle W. Owen, Esq. MEDINA McKELVEY LLP 925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 300 Roseville, CA 95678 Telephone: (916) 960-2211 Facsimile: (916) 742-5488 E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com tim@medinamckelvey.com kyle@medinamckelvey.com PENNSYLVANIA: Williamson Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williamson v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01965-YK-LT (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify class and appoint counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nQo3Ga at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se. [CC] PENUMBRA INC: Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------------- DELAINE PHILLIPS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. PENUMBRA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV030740 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., April 7, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. The proposed class is defined as follows: "All current and former California-based (i.e., currently residing in California with the intent to remain in California indefinitely) hourly-paid or non-exempt employees (whether hired directly or through a staffing agency) of Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final judgment to final judgment." Penumbra is a medical device company headquartered in Alameda, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Halina E. Szymanski, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 PRETTY WOMEN: Nine Former Dancers Join Minimum-Wage Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Kauffman at Iowa Capital Dispatch reports that nine exotic dancers have joined a lawsuit against a West Des Moines club where they contend they 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 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. The Beach Girls adult entertainment club is facing a federal class-action lawsuit filed by a former dancer who contends she worked without salary and had to pay the owner for the right to work for tips. In the Beach Girls case, the club's attorney asked that stipulations 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. Beach Girls also being sued over online ads In addition to the lawsuit over dancers' pay, the West Des Moines strip club called Beach Girls is being sued for allegedly using in its advertisements photos of women who never worked for the club. That lawsuit is one of several filed last year against nine Iowa strip clubs alleging unauthorized use of women's photos in online advertisements. In some of the cases, such as one filed against the Waterloo club Flirt's, the defendants are citing the doctrine of fair use as part of their defense -- essentially arguing that if any copyrighted materials were used without authorization, it was done so purely for educational or descriptive purposes. In the case against Beach Girls, the club argues that a third-party marketing company called Blue Frog Marketing ran the advertisements for the strip club on Beach Girls' social media accounts and that Beach Girls "had no control" over the postings. The club says it paid Blue Frog for its marketing services "with the belief they were valid and legal services." [GN] PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Volino ------------------------------------------------------------------ Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated March 16, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled DOMINICK VOLINO, et al., Plaintiffs v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-6243, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This case concerns insureds' claims that their auto insurers systematically paid them less than the actual cash value of their vehicles for total loss claims, in breach of their policies. All Plaintiffs -- John Plotts, Kevin Lukasik, Lorenzo Costa, Zachary Goodier, James England, Michael Verardo and Lori Lippa -- assert claims of deceptive practices in violation of New York General Business Law and seek a declaratory judgment on behalf of themselves and a putative class. All Plaintiffs except England assert claims for breach of contract on behalf of themselves and a putative class. Both sets of claims are asserted against all Defendants -- Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, Progressive Max Insurance Company and Progressive Casualty Insurance Company. The Plaintiffs move to certify both classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) -- or if not 23(b)(3), then Rule 23(b)(2) -- and seek appointment of class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs also move to certify four subclasses of each class, one for each Defendant, defined with reference to each Defendant's Progressive Company Code. On March 16, 2023, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting certification of the Breach of Contract Class and the GBL Section 349 Class and their subclasses. The Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of class counsel was granted in part and denied in part. Progressive cross-moves to exclude the opinions of Plaintiffs' experts, Jason Merritt, Kenneth Volz and Thomas Gibbs were denied. The appellate case is captioned as Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 23-472, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 30, 2023.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, et al., are represented by: Jeffrey Cashdan, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-5600 Plaintiffs-Respondents John Plotts, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 West 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 - and - Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY 275 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 223-0800 - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 RALPHS GROCERY: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert. Dates OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yosuke Hiradate v. Ralphs Grocery Company, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03593-SSS-PD (C.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order granting stipulation to continue date for submission of Local Rule 37-2 joint stipulations and class certification briefing and related case scheduling deadlines. As set forth in the Joint Scheduling Stipulation, the Joint Stipulations Pursuant to Local Rule 37-2 are due to be filed April 4, 2023, one day after Defendants provide their positions to the Plaintiff for the Joint Stipulations. The other new case deadlines are set forth in the Scheduling Order chart filed with the Order. All deadlines established by the prior Civil Trial Order are vacated. Ralphs is an American supermarket chain in Southern California. A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mqd4O4 at no extra charge.[CC] SAMBAZON INC: West Sues Over Acai Products' Deceptive Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WEST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SAMBAZON, INC., and ECOCERT USA, Case No. 7:23-cv-02961 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2023) is a class action complaint for equitable relief and damages against the Defendants regarding their false and deceptive marketing and sale of Sambazon's Fair for Life Certified Acai Products as ethically sourced and made without the use of child labor. According to the complaint, Sambazon markets the Products as upholding "fair wages and labor practices" and being free from child labor, and Ecocert, for a profit, lends its name to this marketing. The supply and production of these Products, however, contribute to grievous and unsustainable labor abuses, including hazardous child labor, that are endemic in the acai industry. Reasonable consumers seeking to buy ethically sourced acai products are misled both by Ecocert's independent representations that its certification protects children and young people and by Sambazon's representations that the Products are "ethically sourced" and free from child labor, says the suit. The case is a consumer-protection case concerning alleged deceptive marketing representations made about Sambazon's Fair for Life-certified acaí products. The use of fair and sustainable labor practices is of growing concern to consumers, who increasingly seek out products that are made without the use of forced labor, child labor, or exploitative working conditions, especially in industries known for their use of such practices, says the suit. Acai farming is an industry known for such practices. The mechanics of harvesting acai involve scaling tall and spindly trees that cannot bear much weight -- which means that children are often the ones responsible for scaling these trees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (914) 693-2018 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com SASB CORPORATION: Medical Security Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Medical Security Card Company, LLC, Petitioner v. SASB Corporation doing business as: Okeechobee Discount Drug, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Respondent, Case No. 1:23-mc-00161 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-mc-14097-DMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. SASB Corporation doing business as Okeechobee Discount Drug Pharmacy in Okeechobee, Florida.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Kiadii Harmon, Esq. Stephanie Ann Fox, Esq. MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY 1201 N. Market Street Ste 1100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 472-1774 SAVE MART: N.D. Cal. Denied Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein reports that as reported in Law360, plaintiffs represented by Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel have defeated Save Mart Supermarkets' attempts to get workers' claims thrown out of the federal class action lawsuit alleging the grocery chain denied their employees promised retiree medical benefits. The largest regional grocer in California, Save Mart operates over two-hundred Save Mart, Lucky, and FoodMaxx stores and employs tens of thousands of people. The lawsuit alleges Save Mart misled its employees by promising that those who worked long enough to become eligible for retirement would receive medical benefits for life. However, in 2022, the company made the decision to terminate these benefits, leaving hundreds or possibly thousands of retirees without coverage. The lawsuit accuses Save Mart of misrepresentation and of depriving its retired employees of the benefits they were promised. On April 10, 2023, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California rejected Save Mart's motion to dismiss the ERISA lawsuit, which claims Save Mart violated its fiduciary responsibilities in April 2022 when the company chose to cease providing $500 monthly health reimbursements to its retirees and their spouses. "Many of Save Mart's attacks … raise factual disputes that will prove out at a later stage of litigation, including whether it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to believe that Save Mart would always provide beneficiaries with specific benefits and how certain language … should beinterpreted," noted Judge Orrick. "And whether Save Mart’s alleged statements were consistent with the language of the plan documents does not undermine the plaintiffs’ claim," he said. "We are pleased with the Court's ruling," noted Lieff Cabraser partner Anne B. Shaver, who represents the plaintiffs in the litigation. "The court's decision … recognizes that Save Mart's retirees have a legal claim for the retirement benefits that the company promised them and for which they worked so long to secure." [GN] SAZERAC COMPANY: Zielinski Files Suit in W.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sazerac Company, Inc. The case is styled as Larry Zielinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00305-WMS (W.D. Mich., April 5, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Sazerac Company, Inc. -- http://www.sazerac.com/-- is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSON & FISHER, P.A. (NY) 888 Seventh Ave. New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com SCHWARTZ ENTERPRISES: Osorio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ ARLYN ROMEO OSORIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHWARTZ ENTERPRISES INC.,TRINIDAD HOME IMPROVEMENT LLC, SCHWARTZ & OKNIN LLC, all DBA 911 RESTORATION OF NORTH NEW JERSEY, LUIS HINOJOSA, VIVIANA HUFFMAN, and ADI SCHWARTZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01835 (D.N.J., April 1, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to provide proper overtime wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants on December 19, 2022, and continues to date to work for them as a driver. She asserts that she was initially paid $17 per hour at the beginning of his employment, later raised to $18 per hour, but was never paid any overtime compensation despite working approximately 70 hours per week. Schwartz Enterprises Inc. engages in the construction/restoration services industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 SCRANTON, PA: OKs to Pay $385,000 to Settle Second Trash Fee Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- news.yahoo.com reports that nearly 6,000 Scranton residents would receive a partial refund of trash collection fees paid from 2014 to 2018 under a proposed $385,000 settlement of a class action lawsuit. The agreement, filed in Lackawanna County Court, would compensate residents who joined a 2016 lawsuit Adam Guiffrida filed that challenged the city's $300 annual garbage fee. The deal is separate and in addition to a proposed $10 million settlement of a class action suit filed by Mark Schraner and Mari Carr that would refund penalties, interest and costs charged to residents who were delinquent in paying refuse account bills. The Schraner/Carr agreement calls for the city to pay $2.5 million to refund people who paid delinquency penalties and to forgive $7.5 million in penalties, interest and costs tacked on to liens filed against those who did not pay. Under the Guiffrida deal, 5,914 residents who signed on to the lawsuit after it was certified as a class action in January 2018 would receive a share of the settlement fund for each year they paid refuse collection fees from Jan. 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2018. Philadelphia attorney Patrick Howard, who filed the suit on behalf of Guiffrida and other class members, is seeking $115,500 in attorney's fees, which along with litigation costs would be deducted from the settlement fund. Lackawanna County Judge James Gibbons scheduled a hearing for April 21 to review the terms of the deal. If approved, a second hearing would be held at a yet unspecified date to grant final approval. Class members will have an option to opt out of the settlement or challenge the terms of the deal. Jessica Eskra, solicitor, said the city plans to seek a loan to pay both the $385,000 Guiffrida settlement and $2.5 million earmarked for the Schraner/Carr settlement, less $50,000 that will be paid by insurance. Guiffrida at one time owned more than three dozen rental properties. His lawsuit alleged the city's $300 annual garbage fee was arbitrarily set and improperly generates more money than is required to provide garbage collection services. The city maintained the fee does not cover all costs involved, including salaries, benefits, landfill tipping fees and other expenses. The settlement does not reduce the $300 fee, though it notes the city in 2018 began offering a 10% discount if the full bill was paid by the due date. Howard, who also represented the plaintiffs in the Schraner/Carr lawsuit, believes the settlement is a fair resolution to the case. Had the plaintiffs taken the case to trial and prevailed, they would not recover any money, he noted in an email. The judge was tasked only with determining if the city handled the money correctly. If he did, that would have allowed individual plaintiffs to seek a refund, which, given the likelihood the city would have appealed, would take years to resolve. "This settlement brings some financial compensation to those who paid without ongoing litigation," Howard said. The settlement notes the city does not admit any wrongdoing. Mayor Paige Gebhardt Cognetti said she's pleased to have a resolution to the garbage fee cases, which were among several significant lawsuits she inherited from prior administrations that had the potential to financially decimate the city if it lost the cases. Those cases included a challenge to the city's rental registration fees, a lawsuit over missing sewer easements and a suit that challenged the city's collection of wage, real estate, amusement, business privilege, mercantile and local services taxes. Coupled with the garbage fees suits, the city had a combined potential and liability of $180 million, Eskra said. Each of those lawsuits have now been settled for a combined total just over $3 million, she said. "It's important to look at where we could have been," Cognetti said. "We settled for a fraction of what those determinations could have been. I'm so proud of our legal team and happy we can go forward with a clean slate in terminating the large financial liabilities that were hanging over us."[GN] SHEARER'S FOODS: Has 30 Days to Oppose Moore's Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN MOORE, et al., v. SHEARER’S FOODS LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01017-JRA (N.D. Ohio), Hon. Judge John R. Adams entered a class certification order as follows: -- The Court finds that, based on the alleged facts in the Amended Complaint, if Shearer's is found in violation of the FLSA, Shearer's cannot offset uncompensated time for pre-shift work with the compensated short breaks that it allows. -- Shearers has also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file an Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification. That motion is granted. -- Shearer's has 30 days from the date of this Order to file its Opposition. Also, on February 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in further support of their position on the offset question. -- On March 8, 2023, Shearer's filed a Motion to Strike that Notice. Pursuant to the Court's Order, the Motion to Strike is denied as moot. In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege in Count I that Shearer’s has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying the correct amount of overtime. One of the factual situations that Plaintiffs allege is that Plaintiffs are required to engage in the "donning and doffing of sanitary clothing and other protective equipment, handwashing, hand sanitizing, and other anticontamination steps" and a pre-shift huddle prior to their scheduled shift time. The Plaintiffs allege that Shearer's has a policy that prohibits employees from clocking in more than seven minutes before their shift start time. The Amended Complaint alleges, however, that Plaintiffs routinely arrive more than seven minutes before their shift to start the required preshift activities. Shearer's Foods is a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of snack foods. Founded in 1974 as Shearer's Snacks in Brewster, Ohio, the company now has factories in Ohio, Texas, Arkansas, Oregon, Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota and Ontario, with worldwide distribution. A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Un2NEg at no extra charge.[CC] SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Hours, Johnson Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01562 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2023), alleges that the Defendant has engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Johnson was a citizen of California when he worked for Siemens Industry, Inc. He worked for Siemens from approximately October of 2019 to February of 2022. In his complaint, Johnson claims that Siemens Industry, Inc. failed to maintain a policy that compensates its employees for all overtime wages. Mr. Johnson also alleges that former commissioned employees were misclassified as exempt by Siemens and were not paid for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. He seeks monetary relief against Siemens to recover, among other things, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and penalties pursuant to the FLSA. Siemens Industry, Inc. provides engineering and technological solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Shigufa Saleheen, Esq. Brielle Edborg, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com shigufa@lebelaw.com brielle@lebelaw.com SPIRIT AIRLINES: Class Notice Stipulation in Cox Suit Due April 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, THOMAS COX, JULIE FEINER, SUSAN HOTT, SUSY KOSHKAKARYAN, YULIUS MUSTAFA, GRETA SCHOENEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-5172(EK)(VMS)(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric Komitee of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York orders the parties to submit a stipulation and proposed order regarding class notice, and a proposed class notice consistent with his Order by April 24, 2023. The lawsuit is a class action arising from Spirit's practice of charging fees for carry-on baggage. In March 2022, Judge Komitee certified a class of first-time Spirit fliers who purchased their flights through specified online travel agents during a specified period. After he denied Spirit's motion for reconsideration, the parties submitted letters regarding the content of the class notice. Spirit submits that the notice should include a questionnaire asking absent class members -- meaning, at this stage, all class members other than the named Plaintiffs -- to (1) state whether they flew on Spirit during the 13-month period after Spirit started charging for carry-ons but before the start of the class period, and (2) identify their state or country of residence during the class period. The Plaintiffs oppose Spirit's request to include these questions. Judge Komitee denies Spirit's request. He explains that courts are extremely reluctant to permit discovery of absent class members. There is no uniform test for allowing such discovery. Several courts in the Second Circuit have required the defendant to demonstrate that the information sought (1) is not sought with the purpose or effect of harassment or altering membership of the class; (2) is directly relevant to the common questions and unavailable from the representative parties; and (3) is necessary at trial to resolve issues common to the class. Others have required the defendant to show that the discovery (1) is needed for the purposes of trial or the issues common to the class, (2) is narrowly tailored, (3) will not impose undue burden on the absent class members, and (4) is not available from representative plaintiffs. Both tests demand a "strong" showing. Under either test, Judge Komitee finds that Spirit's request fails. Among other problems, the questionnaire would function much like an "opt-in" requirement, and thereby carry the potential to alter the membership of the class. Spirit has also failed to show that the information it seeks is relevant to common questions or necessary for trial, as required by both of the tests. Moreover, Spirit offers no compelling reason for requiring this information prior to trial (and especially the damages stage thereof). Spirit's proposed questionnaire will therefore be omitted from the class notice. The parties will submit a stipulation and proposed order regarding class notice, and a proposed class notice consistent with this order, by April 24, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxdapjn from Leagle.com. SPRUCE POWER: Sarkadi Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH SARKADI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPRUCE POWER 1, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-CV-02527 (C.D. Cal., April 4, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by harassing consumers and using deceptive means in attempting to collect alleged debts. On or about Jan. 26, 2015, Plaintiff had a company named Verengo Solar install solar panels on the roof of his home. A short period of time after Plaintiff had the solar system installed, he discovered that the solar system did not generate useful electricity and thus failed to work as intended. The Plaintiff contacted Verengo Solar, or its successors in interest, and informed them that the system did not work. The Plaintiff further stated his intention not to pay for any further solar services. On or about Dec. 12, 2022, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter in an effort to collect an alleged debt in the amount of $3,998.55. In the said letter, the Defendant allegedly threatened that it is considering taking legal action to recover this obligation, says the suit. Spruce Power is engaged in the business of collecting a debt by use of emails. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com STEWARD HEALTH: Doe Sues Over Alleged Data Privacy Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a class action alleges that Steward Health Care System discloses website visitors' personal and health information to Meta and Google without consent in a case-captioned Doe v. Steward Health Care System LLC. A proposed class action alleges that Steward Health Care System discloses website visitors' personal and health information to Meta and Google without consent. The 31-page case out of Massachusetts says that Steward Health Care System, which sees more than 2.2 million patients per year at 39 hospitals throughout the country, operates websites for its various medical facilities where patients can schedule doctor appointments or obtain information about medical conditions, medical services, doctors and specialists. Unbeknownst to visitors, Steward has installed onto its websites invisible programming code that automatically shares the precise contents of consumers’ website interactions with Meta and Google, the lawsuit alleges. According to the suit, Steward has violated federal and state privacy laws by disclosing patients' highly sensitive, personal medical information without consent. The complaint contends that patients reasonably expected their communications to remain confidential, especially since Steward's privacy policy fails to mention that it discloses patients' data to third parties and explicitly states that it is "required by law to protect the privacy of any medical information that identifies you." Despite Steward's acknowledgment that it is prohibited from selling patients' medical information without their written authorization, the healthcare network receives compensation from Meta and Google in the form of enhanced marketing services in exchange for the data it shares, the filing alleges. The lawsuit claims that Steward uses Google Analytics, a web analytics service, and a small snippet of code known as the Meta pixel to secretly track visitors' actions as they navigate its websites and collect information that allows the third parties to link web activity to specific users. For instance, Steward's websites offer a "DoctorFinder" page wherein users can search for a provider based on specific criteria before selecting a doctor of their choice, the suit says. "As the patient sends search requests and views the resulting webpages, this information is automatically sent directly to Google," the complaint states, adding that the tracking tool also shares patients’ IP addresses, which can be used to track an individual's internet communications. Similarly, the Meta pixel reveals users' IP addresses, names, emails, phone numbers, physician appointments, appointment requests, symptoms, diagnoses and medications, which the social media giant then stores on its own servers, the filing alleges. As the case tells it, the tracking tool also collects a unique identifier, known as a Facebook ID (FID), that Meta assigns to each Facebook user. "Anyone who possesses an FID can use this identifier to easily view its corresponding Facebook profile," the filing reads. "So, anyone who knows how to use Facebook can use the information that Steward is disclosing to identify a Facebook using patient." The plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, claims to have received personalized advertisements for medical services on Facebook since she began using one of Steward's websites in 2021. The lawsuit seeks to cover anyone in Massachusetts who has been a Steward patient at any time since March 31, 2016 and used any of the healthcare network's medical websites to search for or communicate information concerning the symptoms, diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition, to use the "DoctorFinder" feature or to schedule an appointment.[GN] TABLE TALK: Oliveira Sues Over Maintenance Staff's Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Trea Lavery of Mass Live reports that a former employee of Table Talk Pies is claiming that a set of policies at the company's manufacturing facility resulted in her and more than 500 other employees not being paid for all the hours they worked. In a class action lawsuit originally filed in 2020 in Worcester Superior Court, Tanya Oliveira, a former maintenance employee at the pie company, claimed a payroll policy that rounded employees' work time to the nearest quarter hour resulted in them being underpaid because they were not allowed to clock in more than seven minutes before their shift started. In addition, employees were required to be on the factory floor seven minutes before the start of their shift, time for which the lawsuit says they were not paid. While Oliveira worked at the company's factory on Southgate Street in Worcester, these policies were in place at all three of Table Talk's facilities at the time. In a court hearing on April 11, 2023, attorneys for both Oliveira and Table Talk asked a judge to grant summary judgement in their favor. While the parties largely agreed on the facts of the case, each had a different analysis on the legality of what happened. According to payroll data cited in court documents, between May 19, 2017 and Oct. 16, 2021, Table Talk's rounding policy resulted in production and maintenance employees losing a total of more than 4,200 hours of pay. In addition, between May 19, 2017 and May 31, 2020, between 70 and 74% of hourly employees ended each year with a net negative number of recorded work hours. In a letter to the court dated Sept. 8, 2021, Table Talk attorney Kenneth Pickering admitted that Oliveira herself worked a total of approximately eight hours unpaid over the course of her time at the company, which was about a year. However, he argued, she was paid for those hours when additional compensation she received for vacation, holiday and bonus pay were taken into account. According to state law, employers may round hourly pay to the nearest quarter hour, provided the employee pay balances out over a period of time as some days are rounded up and others are rounded down. "It simply cannot be the case that a rounding policy that reduces employees' contemporaneously recorded work time by hundreds of hours per year is one which ensures that the employees' work time 'averages out over a reasonable period' so that they are 'fully compensated for all the time [they] actually worked,'" attorneys for Oliveira wrote in a motion for summary judgement. "A timekeeping system like Table Talk's -- which has enabled it to shed, in the aggregate, hundreds of hours per year in employee work time, totaling more than 4,000 hours over a four-year period -- is neither 'even' nor 'balanced' within any commonsense meaning of those words." Oliveira claimed that because employees were not allowed to clock in more than seven minutes before the start of their shift, a policy which was posted above the time clock, written on weekly schedules and repeated by managers, their work time was automatically rounded down, not up. Attorneys for Table Talk argued in their own court filings that, while the rounding system did result in hours for which employees were not paid, this was offset by the fact that production employees were paid for daily 30-minute lunch breaks during which they did not work. "They were fully compensated each week for all working time despite Table Talk's time rounding policy," they wrote. "Thus, regardless of whether the time rounding policy adjusted those employees' times to the nearest quarter hour in their favor or in favor of Table Talk, those employees were more than fully compensated for their working time due to the paid meal breaks." Maintenance employees like Oliveira were also paid for their daily 30-minute lunch breaks, but were expected to be on-call during this time in case there was an issue with the production line, so were required to be paid for this time anyway. However, Table Talk has also argued that because Oliveira was a maintenance employee, she does not represent all hourly employees, the majority of which work in production. In court on April 11, 2023, Oliveira's attorney, Brant Casavant, argued that these paid meal breaks are not relevant because they were never intended to offset time missed due to the rounding policy. Table Talk instituted paid meal breaks for production employees several years before Oliveira's lawsuit was filed when the company instituted a three-shift schedule, giving each employee a shorter shift. In order to avoid reducing the number of hours that employees were paid for, the company began paying for meal breaks. Citing two previous Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court cases, Casavant said the paid meal breaks were not a legal way to offset the rounding. "If they had said something along the lines of, 'You're getting a 30-minute paid meal break. We may use that money to offset other time for rounding purposes' . . . that may have brought it into compliance with the Wage Act," Casavant said. "They were getting a paid lunch, not a payment that the employer can now, in response to this lawsuit, say, 'It's also due to time you lost due to rounding.'" Pickering disagreed, saying that employee pay stubs broke down what each payment included in terms of regular hours, overtime, paid lunch, holiday pay, sick and vacation pay and bonuses, which was enough to communicate the purpose of each payment to the employees. "The purpose was not to pay for lunch. It was simply to increase paid time the employees got," Pickering said, referring to the decision to institute paid meal breaks. Judge Daniel Wrenn has not yet ruled on the motions. The case is scheduled to be back in court on May 23 for argument on whether it can be certified as a class action suit. [GN] TESLA INC: Violates Customers' Privacy, Yeh Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY YEH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, TESLA, INC., Case No. e 3:23-cv-01704-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2023) seeks to enjoin Tesla from engaging in its wrongful behavior, including violating the privacy of customers and others, and to recover actual and punitive damages. Tesla is a manufacturer of electric vehicles that incorporate cameras into the vehicles' "Autopilot" systems. Since at least 2019, the cameras in Tesla vehicles captured highly-invasive videos and images of the cars’ owners, which Tesla employees were able to access -- not for the stated purposes of communication, fulfillment of services, and enhancement of Tesla vehicle driving systems -- but for the tasteless and tortious entertainment of Tesla employees, and perhaps those outside the company, and the humiliation of those surreptitiously recorded, says the suit. By virtue of this defective system, Tesla employees accessed and circulated recordings of Tesla customers in private and embarrassing situations, without their consent including, for example, video of a man approaching a Tesla vehicle completely naked, and video of vehicle crashes and road-rage incidents. Tesla employees also shared pictures of family pets, which were made into memes by embellishing them with captions or commentary before posting them in group chats. While some postings were only shared between a few employees, others could be seen by "scores" of Tesla employees. And as is common with internet culture, many of these videos and images were very likely shared with persons outside the company. That such videos and images were made available to Tesla employees to view and share, at will, and for improper purposes, affects each and every person with a Tesla vehicle, their families, passengers, and even guests in their homes, the suit alleges. Mr. Yeh owns a 2022 Tesla Model Y, which he ordered in November 2021 and took delivery of in February 2022. Tesla was founded in San Carlos, California in 2003 and remained headquartered in California through December 1, 2021, on which date it relocated its headquarters to Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Paul K. Joseph, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq. FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Phone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com - and - Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. James M. Davis, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (SBN 149343) 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com jdavis@bholaw.com THR PROPERTY: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due April 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL CORLEY, v. THR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, L.P., et al.,Case No. 5:23-cv-00146-FLA-KK (C.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-rocha entered an order as follows: -- Co Completion of Pre-Class Certification Dec. 1, 2023 Document Discovery: -- Completion of Pre-Class Certification Feb. 1, 2024 Depositions: -- Completion of Pre-Class Expert Discovery: March 31, 2024 -- Last Date to File Motion for Class April 30, 2024 Certification: -- Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend March 29, 2024 Pleadings or Add Parties: -- Last Date to Hear Motion for Class June 28, 2024 Certification: THR Property operates as a home leasing company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40ZuUMf at no extra charge.[CC] TWITTER INC: Sued Over Breach of Contract, Nonpayment of Bills -------------------------------------------------------------- WHITE COAT CAPTIONING, LLC; YES CONSULTING, LLC; CANCOMM LLC (DBA DIALOGUE INC.); AND DIALOGUE MÉXICO S.A. DE C.V., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01594 (N.D. Cal., April 4, 2023) arises from the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims against the Defendant. Since the company's purchase by Elon Musk in late October 2022, Twitter has slashed spending -- by laying off most of its workforce and stopping payment to vendors for services rendered. Indeed, more than a dozen vendors, contractors, and property owners with whom Twitter holds leases across the country have already sued Twitter individually for breach of contract. Plaintiff White Coat Captioning, LLC contracted with Twitter to provide professional real-time captioning services throughout 2022. In mid-November 2022, White Coat Captioning, LLC's President and CEO Norma Miller contacted Twitter about several overdue invoices totaling approximately $42,000. Twitter acknowledged receiving and approving the invoices but has yet to issue payment. To ensure Twitter complies with the law, the Plaintiffs bring this breach of contract claim on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated vendors and contractors who executed contracts with Twitter, rendered services, and have outstanding or overdue invoices, says the suit. Twitter, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Jane Farrell, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com jfarrell@llrlaw.com ULTIMA HEALTH: Drink Mix Misbranded, Scheibe Class Suits Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB SCHEIBE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. ULTIMA HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00632-JES-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 7, 2023) is a class action against Ultima alleging that its Replenisher Electrolyte Hydration Drink Mix is misbranded and falsely advertised by using synthetic flavorings and deceptive labels. The Drink Mix is a dietary supplement manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendant. On August 16, 2022, Mr. Scheibe purchased Ultima's Replenisher Electrolyte Mix, raspberry and watermelon flavors, from Amazon.com. Mr. Scheibe is a student who has recently sought to lose weight and gain muscle. He carefully reviews labels, including the Products' labels, to ensure that he consumes only natural ingredients and avoids artificial flavors and ingredients. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as representative of all those similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on behalf of all consumers in the state of California who purchased the Products within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint. Excluded from the Class are Defendant and its affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, employees, officers, agents, and directors. Also excluded are any judicial officers presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com UNITED KINGDOM: Review of Class Certification Denial in Lewis Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARION T.D. LEWIS, Plaintiff v. THE GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND AND THE UNITED KINGDOM and THE INSTITUTION OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY OR THE CROWN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10792 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Court's order denying the motion to certify a class. The Plaintiff, a lawyer proceeding pro se, commenced the action on Dec. 21, 2022, and filed an Amended Complaint on Dec. 28, 2022. On Jan. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff moved to certify a class. On Jan. 31, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion on the grounds that a pro se plaintiff cannot seek to represent the interests of third parties. On March 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a letter on the docket indicating that she had not received notice of the Jan. 31, 2023 until March 28, 2023, and requested the Court reconsiders its order denying the motion to certify a class. As an initial matter, Judge Rochon finds that the Plaintiff's motion was filed long after its deadline under Local Rule 6.3. The Plaintiff contends that she did not receive notice of the Jan. 31, 2023 Order until March 28, 2023. She is an attorney barred in this Court, and has ECF and Pacer access, permitting her to electronically file and receive electronic notification of Court filings. Her contact information is listed on the docket. To the extent any of this information is no longer correct, Judge Rochon says the Plaintiff must update her account on ECF and/or Pacer to receive electronic notifications of filings at the email address she has listed in her letter. If she has any questions related to this process, she should contact the Attorneys Services Help Desk at 212-805-0800. Although untimely, Judge Rochon considers the merits of the Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiff argues that, as an attorney, she can represent a class pro se because she is willing to forego all attorneys' fees related to the case. To be sure, a conflict of interest is a concern about permitting a pro se attorney to represent a class. However, waiving attorneys' fees does not entirely obviate this conflict of interest because the Plaintiff would still be acting as both the class representative and the class counsel. Other courts in this Circuit have concluded that a complaint's class allegations cannot stand because a pro se plaintiff, seeks to serve both as class representative and as class counsel. Judge Rochon states that the principle is based on the concepts that an attorney should not have a personal interest in the outcome of a litigation while a class representative must be personally invested in its outcome; these dual priorities cannot be reconciled in the same person. She is not otherwise convinced that the Plaintiff can adequately represent a class under the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). For these reasons, Judge Rochon concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the strict standard required for reconsideration and has not pointed to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked. Accordingly, her motion is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's April 5, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ykmcspcr from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Jedra of Civil Beat reports that the U.S. Navy was hit with new legal claims on April 10, 2023 from families who were sickened by military fuel that contaminated their drinking water in 2021. The Federal Tort Claims Act complaint was filed in federal court by former Hawaii attorney general Margery Bronster, who is representing civilian residents of the Pearl Harbor water system. The lawsuit argues that the Navy failed to exercise reasonable care in its operation of its World War II-era Red Hill fuel facility, located just 100 feet above the island's primary aquifer. Military investigations found that fuel leaked into the water following a series of failures in leadership, training and maintence. After discovering a catastrophic leak of fuel into a tunnel near the drinking water well in November 2021, the Navy kept delivering water to communities for days and failed to warn them that the water could be unsafe. Families who ingested and bathed in the fuel-tainted water experienced impacts to their health and finances, the lawsuits notes. They are seeking compensation for their injuries. "In the spill's early days, residents ingested highly toxic chemicals as the Navy remained silent," the complaint states. "After the spill, the Navy’s modest efforts at remediation and 'assistance' have only compounded Plaintiffs' injuries and frustration. Their lives may never be the same. " The case is the latest in a series of legal claims filed by impacted military members and their families against the Navy and military housing companies. [GN] VIMEO.COM INC: Faces Pollock Suit Over Subscription's Auto-Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------------ PSALM POLLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIMEO.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-CV-00602-L-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 4, 2023) alleges that Vimeo.com, Inc. violated the California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff Pollock brings this action individually and on behalf of all California purchasers of any of Defendant's Vimeo subscriptions from the Vimeo website who incurred unauthorized fees for the renewal of their Vimeo subscriptions. Based on Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff also seeks damages, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for the violations of aforementioned laws, for conversion, unjust enrichment/restitution, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Vimeo.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business located at 330 W 34th St., New York, New York. It is an American subscription videohosting and streaming platform and is one of the most popular streaming services in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com - and - Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com - and – Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF: Ewing Bid to Amend Complaint OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARELL R. EWING, et al., v. WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-11453-SFC-PTM (E.D. Mich.), Hon. Judge Sean F. Cox entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. The Court further ordered that: -- the Plaintiffs' motion to expedite is granted, in part, with respect to the screening and service of the amended complaint. The request to expedite review of the pending motions is denied as moot. -- The Plaintiffs' remaining motions are denied. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' right to seek such relief on a developed record. The case is a civil rights action brought by eleven current and former Wayne County Jail inmates pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiffs are Darrell R. Ewing, Roderick Graham, Lamont Lofton, Jonvonte Wiley, Quenshaun Littlejohn, Leonlius Kirsey, Cullen Clemons, Antonio Richard, Shandon Groom, Rackwon Fowler, and Antoine Bowman. The Plaintiffs assert that their jail conditions relative to COVID-19 violate various constitutional rights. The Plaintiffs have filed multiple motions since filing the complaint. Before the Court are Plaintiffs' motions to amend the complaint, motion to appoint counsel, motion for class certification, motion for preliminary injunction, motion to order defendants to provide copies of Plaintiffs' grievances, and motions to expedite. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZTLprO at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Fails to Pay Mortgage Consultants' Minimum, OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL LANNING, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-00568-RJC (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 5, 2023) seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, agreed upon wages, commissions, unlawful deductions, spread-of-hours-pay, and other damages for the Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers -- mortgage consultants who work or have worked for the Defendant nationwide, including Home Mortgage Consultant, Home Mortgage Consultant, Jr., Private Mortgage Banker or Private Mortgage Banker, Jr., in violation of the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Defendant allegedly carried over guaranteed hourly pay to the next month and recaptured guaranteed hourly pay from commissions of the Plaintiff and Mortgage Consultants. The Defendant also required the Plaintiff and New York Mortgage Consultants to perform significant off-the-clock work. The Plaintiff and New York Mortgage Consultants have regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. They were instructed by the Defendant's management to only record a certain amount of hours, instead of the hours actually worked for the Defendant. As a result, the Plaintiff and New York Mortgage Consultants regularly did not record all hours worked. The Defendant continued to suffer and permit Plaintiff and New York Mortgage Consultants to work this unrecorded time, the suit claims. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Mortgage Consultants nationwide pursuant to the Rule 23, to redress Defendant's breach of contract or unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Private Mortgage Banker from 2016 until 2018, reporting to an office in New York, New York. Wells Fargo is a national bank providing online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment, retirement, wealth management, and insurance services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 - and - Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC 100 First Avenue, Suite 650 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 Facsimile: (412) 774-1994 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com - and - John R. Linkosky, Esq. JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106 Telephone: (412) 278-1280 Facsimile: (412) 278-1282 E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net WEYERHAEUSER NR: Sanchez Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV02624 (Filed Feb. 6, 2023) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the Federal District Court for the Central district of California on April 5, 2023. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02574 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks several categories of monetary relief, including, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, unpaid wages at overtime rates, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages. The Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative class members incurred unpaid minimum, regular, and overtime compensation because the Defendant failed to compensate them for all hours worked, and failed to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or in excess of 40 hours in a week. Weyerhaeuser engages in forest regeneration projects, forest harvesting, log procurement, and marketing of harvested products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eugene Ryu, Esq. Gabriel M. Huey, Esq. Jessica S. Kang, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-5000 Facsimile: (310) 553-5001 E-mail: Gene.Ryu@klgates.com Gabriel.Huey@klgates.com Jessica.Kang@klgates.com WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Due 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.), Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order setting for the following briefing schedule for Plaintiff Elizabeth Perlin's Motion for Class Certification: 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 Court's order dated March 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Klfjzz 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 ********* 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 ***