/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230421.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 21, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 81 Headlines AHS MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Plan Participant Class in McCool ALCOA USA: Court Denies Bid to Serve Interrogatories in Butch Suit ARGENT TRUST: Class in Placht Suit Certified; Bailey Named Counsel ASA COLLEGE: Fact Discovery Due August 2 ATLAS REAL ESTATE: Pan Files Suit in D. Colorado AYVAZ PIZZA: Garza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages BAY CLUBS COMPANY: Race Files Suit in N.D. Illinois BEST BUY: Fails to Honor Price Match Guarantee, Dima Suit Alleges BLOCK INC: Official Intelligence Sues Over Afterpay Merger Deal BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Zales Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Walker Sues Over Share Price Drop CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM: Perotti Sues Over Data Breach CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Romero Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation CAPSULE CORP: Lopez Seeks Proper Overtime and Minimum Wages CATALYST BIOSCIENCES: Bushansky Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty CATALYST BIOSCIENCES: Scott Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties CONCENTRA INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Pascal Suit CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Court Dismisses Int'l House Suit W/o Prejudice DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Heppard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation EDELMAN FINANCIAL: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FIVE9 INC: Przywara Sues Over Wiretapping Electronic Communications FUN IN TRAMPOLINE: Faces Liappes Suit Over Wage Law Violations GLOBAL MEDICAL RESPONSE: Baker Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado HARD ROCK CONCRETE: McCoy Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois HILLTOP LODGING: Bowling Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Kentucky HOME ATTENDANT: Mirzamakhmudova Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages HP INC: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Maryland Electrical's Complaint JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Overcharges Narcolepsy Drugs, MSP Alleges JP MORGAN: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Weichsel's TILA Claim LESCO BUILDERS: Freeman Sues to Recover Overtime Wages LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Hammond Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime LIP BAR: Faces Dewberry Suit Over Unfair Biometric Data Collection MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL: Kostov Sues Over Unpaid Overtime MEDIA RESEARCH: Discloses Subscriber’s Personal Info, Dicker Says NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Homaidan's Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Class Settlement in Hook Suit Gets Initial Nod NEW YORK, NY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to April 30 NORTHSTAR EMS: Horton Files Suit in N.D. Alabama NSC TECHNOLOGIES: Class Settlement in Thompson Gets Final Nod OAKLEY INC: Overcharges Tax Rate for Products' Sales, Fantroy Says OLD DOMINION: Kararo Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection PRAIRIE IT LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PREGIS LLC: Bazinett Sues Over Failure to Pay Weekly Compensation PRETTY GIRL CURVES: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PRIMEX FARMS LLC: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RATNER COMPANIES: Olsen Sues Over Hair Stylists' Unpaid Wages RB HEALTH: Loses Bid to Dismiss DiGiacinto's 1st Amended Complaint RCG LOGISTICS LLC: Prasad Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RCI HOSPITALITY: Mbaye Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Scarborough Sues Over Price Manipulation ROBINSON SPORTS: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RUZE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SALISBURY BANCORP: Continues to Defend Parshall Class Suit SKYFINEUSA LLC: Stokes Suit Remanded to Sacramento Superior Court SMART ALABAMA: De la Rosa Files Suit in N.D. Georgia SMARTRENT INC: Osei-Asibey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SN SERVICING: Gregg Sues Over False and Misleading Statements ST. ANTHONY FOUNDATION: James Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices STEIN SAKS: Goldberg Files Suit in S.D. New York SUNCOAST CREDIT: Solomon Suit Removed to C.D. California TEGUS INC: Hill Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TIMELESS TILE: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TMX FINANCE: Faces Eslinger Suit Over Customer's Data Breach TMX FINANCE: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information TOPDOG CANINE: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TOUCHSTONE HOME: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRAFILEA GROUP: Gomez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois TRAVELERS HOME: Ledford Files Suit in W.D. Missouri TRIDENT ACQUISITION: Weisheipl Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty TWC PRODUCT: Court Denies Hart Bid for Class Certification UNITED STAFFING: Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd WALMART INC: Class Cert Hearing Set for May 31 WALMART INC: Must Oppose Arrison Class Cert Bid by April 24 WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE: Pfister Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania WYNDHAM VACATION: Faces Huskey Suit Over Timeshare Loans ZOLL MEDICAL: McMahon Files Suit in D. Massachusetts Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Reports $162.4MM Loss on Divestitures ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Defends of PI Lawsuits ********* AHS MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Plan Participant Class in McCool ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MCCOOL, SHAWN MACDONALD, AND WARREN HARLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AHS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01158 (M.D. Tenn.), Hon. Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order certifying a class of: "all participants, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between December 24, 2013, through the date of any judgment in this case." In addition, the Court appoints Mark McCool, Shawn MacDonald, and Warren Harlan as class representatives, and Capozzi Adler, P.C. as class counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZWWisV at no extra charge.[CC] ALCOA USA: Court Denies Bid to Serve Interrogatories in Butch Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, EDMOND M. BUTCH, et al., Plaintiffs v. ALCOA USA CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00258-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind.), Judge Mark J. Dinsmore of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, denies the Defendants' Motion for Leave to Serve Interrogatories on Absent Class Members. The case arises out of Alcoa's elimination of life insurance benefits for many of its retired employees in December 2019. The Plaintiff-retirees worked at a variety of Alcoa facilities throughout the United States (totaling 21 facilities) and were represented by either the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC and its predecessors or the Aluminum Trades Council of Wenatchee, Washington AFL-CIO and its predecessors. The retirees' life insurance benefits consisted of either "company-paid life insurance" or "optional life insurance," for which the retiree would pay a contractual premium to receive additional, voluntary coverage. In this case, the retirees challenge the elimination of the company-paid life insurance benefits, arguing that the termination of benefits violated a master collective bargaining agreement between the employees and Alcoa. A subset of the retirees also seek reinstatement of the optional life insurance benefits pursuant to a different set of collective bargaining agreements between the retirees and Alcoa. The Class consists of approximately 5,661 retirees; the Subclass consists of a subset of approximately 879 of the same retirees. After announcing that it intended to eliminate the life insurance benefits, Alcoa sent three letters to the affected retirees between Dec. 5, 2019, and Jan. 10, 2020. The first letter, sent Dec. 5, 2019, provided notice of the elimination of life insurance benefits and included a "discretionary payment" that represented 20% of the value of death benefits under the canceled insurance. The letter also contained a disclaimer that the check had to be cashed by Feb. 29, 2020, and that by endorsing and presenting this check for payment, a retiree is agreeing to waive any claims for life insurance coverage from the Company after Dec. 31, 2019. Following the filing of the lawsuit on Dec. 19, 2019, Alcoa sent a second letter on Dec. 26, 2019, to the retirees who had not yet cashed their checks. A third letter was sent on Jan. 10, 2020, announcing the commencement of the lawsuit and informing the retirees of their right to participate in and prosecute their claims. Both the second and third letters contained the same waiver language present in the initial letter from Dec. 5, 2019. Approximately 88% of the retirees cashed the check and signed the waiver. The Defendants seek leave to serve interrogatories on the absent class members who signed the waivers and cashed their checks, which includes more than 4,970 of the retirees. The interrogatories consist of 17 questions spanning multiple pages. The Defendants suggest that the interrogatories be included with the class certification notice sent to the class members who signed the waiver. Judge Dinsmore says it would be inefficient to require discovery from approximately 5,000 class members at this stage of the litigation when dispositive motions might well eliminate or narrow the issues to which any such discovery might be relevant. In addition to the inefficiency of permitting the discovery at issue at this stage of the litigation, there would also be substantial potential for confusion if the interrogatories were to be sent with the class notice as requested by the Defendants. Moreover, Judge Dinsmore has reviewed the proposed interrogatories and finds that the discovery sought by the Defendants is simply not proportional to the needs of the case at this time. Accordingly, he denies the Defendants' Motion for Leave to Serve Interrogatories on Absent Class Members. Furthermore, he denies the Defendants' request for oral argument regarding the motion as unnecessary. By April 25, 2023, the parties will file a proposed joint scheduling order for the remaining deadlines in the case and a plan for service of class notice. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2axdjw6h from Leagle.com. ARGENT TRUST: Class in Placht Suit Certified; Bailey Named Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CAROLYN PLACHT, on behalf of the Symbria Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 21 C 5783 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. Placht, a participant in the retirement plan of Symbria, brought the putative class action under the Employee Retirement Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq., against Argent. She alleges that Argent, the Plan's Trustee, violated its fiduciary duties to Plan participants as to an Oct. 31, 2015 transaction, in which the Plan and its Trust, the Symbria Inc. Employee Ownership Trust, purchased all issued and outstanding shares of Symbria from the former shareholders for $66.5 million ("ESOP Transaction"). That purchase price was financed by two loans at a 2.64% interest rate, one 40-year loan guaranteed by Symbria, and another loan from the shareholders who were selling the shares to the Plan and Trust. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plan and its Trust overpaid for the Symbria shares and that the overpayment is attributable to Argent. The Plaintiff alleges that the ESOP Transaction involved prohibited transactions under ERISA Section 406(a), 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a), including the purchase of stocks from and acceptance of loans from parties in interest, and that Argent breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA Section 404(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a), by failing to independently and thoroughly investigate whether the Symbria stock price was properly valued. She claims that the Defendants' actions caused her and all Plan participants to suffer diminutions of their Plan account values. The Plaintiff now seeks class certification. The Plaintiff in Counts I and II of her complaint alleges that, in conjunction with the ESOP Transaction, Argent violated ERISA Sections 406, 409(a), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1106(a), 1109(a), by causing the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions and breaching its fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty by failing to discover that the Plan was overpaying for the Symbria shares due to overstated valuations and overzealous projections. She brings these claims pursuant to ERISA Sections 409 and 502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1109, 1132(a)(2), "in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan as a whole." The Plaintiff now seeks to represent and certify a class defined as follows: "All participants in the Symbria, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and the beneficiaries of such participants as of the date of the Oct. 31, 2015 ESOP Transaction or anytime thereafter." Excluded from the class are "the shareholders who sold their Symbria stock to the Plan, directly or indirectly, and their immediate families; the directors and officers of Symbria and their immediate families; and legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons." The Plaintiff seeks to be appointed as class representative and asks that the Court appoints as class counsel her attorneys at Bailey & Glasser LLP. Argent does not contest the class definition but asserts that the Plaintiff's presentation in support is imperfect; nonetheless, it does not dispute that a class could properly be certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and does not oppose the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of counsel. Judge Guzman states that although the Defendant does not meaningfully contest class certification, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) imposes an independent duty on the district court to determine by order that the requirements for class certification are satisfied. This requires a "rigorous analysis" to ensure that the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a)'s four stated requirements of numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of representation; and and the proposed class action falls within the types of suits set forth in Rule 23(b). A court that certifies a class also must generally appoint class counsel. Judge Guzman finds that (i) the Defendant does not challenge class numerosity, and he sees no reason to doubt that the proposed class numbers greater than 40, such that joinder of all members would be impracticable; (ii) the case presents common questions as to whether and how Argent breached its fiduciary duties to the Plan through the ESOP Transaction, whether Argent's indemnification agreement with Symbria was void, and whether the Plan participants were thereby damaged; (iii) the Plaintiff's claim arises under the same legal theories and from the same events, the ESOP Transaction and indemnification provision, as the claims of the class members; and (iv) there is no apparent conflict or any inconsistency, as the Plaintiff is part of the class and possesses the same interest and suffers the same injury as the class members. Rule 23(b)(1) permits class certification where individual lawsuits would create a risk of (1) "inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct" for defendants or (2) "adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. Judge Guzman agrees that the circumstances of the case fall within the parameters of a Rule 23(b)(1) class action. The Plaintiff finally must demonstrate that the proposed class counsel has the necessary experience and competence to litigate the case. Judge Guzman finds that the Plaintiff's supporting declaration and her attorneys' conduct in the litigation thus far establish that those attorneys possess the necessary experience, competence, drive, and resources to effectively litigate on behalf of a class, and they have collectively litigated on behalf of classes in complex litigation, including similar ERISA claims. In view of his analysis, Judge Guzman grants the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel as to Counts I-III. The case was set for an in-person status to discuss next steps on April 19, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/57ded269 from Leagle.com. ASA COLLEGE: Fact Discovery Due August 2 ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrade-Barteldes, v. ASA College, Inc., et al Case No. 1:23-cv-00495-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order that: -- All parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, including motions and trial. -- The parties have not conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). -- The parties have not engaged in settlement discussions. -- Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed no later than May 4, 2023. -- All fact discovery is to be completed no later than August 2, 2023. ASA College is a private for-profit college in New York City and Hialeah, Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oac7PC at no extra charge.[CC] ATLAS REAL ESTATE: Pan Files Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlas Real Estate Group LLC. The case is styled as Jeffrey Pan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Atlas Real Estate Group LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00910-KLM (D. Colo., April 12, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Atlas Real Estate Group, LLC -- https://realatlas.com/ -- provides real estate services. The Company invests in, rents, manages, buys, sells, and markets properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com AYVAZ PIZZA: Garza Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Israel Garza and Larrie Gurule, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Ayvaz Pizza, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01379 (S.D. Tex., April 12, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA") to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendant at their Pizza Hut Pizza stores. The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to Defendant's customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendant used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that neither reimburse the drivers for their actual expenses, nor at the IRS business mileage rate which is legally required and a reasonable approximation of those expenses. This under-reimbursement causes their wages to fall below the applicable minimum wage during some or all workweeks. Additionally, the Defendant had a policy and practice of failing to pay delivery drivers for all of their overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver. The Defendant operates hundreds of Pizza Hut franchise stores across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com JPavlos@forthepeople.com BAY CLUBS COMPANY: Race Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bay Clubs Company, LLC. The case is styled as Luigiano Race, in the interests of the public, on behalf of the general public, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Bay Clubs Company, LLC d/b/a Bay Club, Case No. CGC23605805 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 12, 2023). The case type is stated as "Civil Rights." The Bay Club -- https://www.bayclubs.com/ -- is a hospitality company that owns and operates nine sport resort campuses in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik C. Jenkins, Esq. JENKINS LAW FIRM A.P.C. 1134 Kline Street La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: 858-314-2400 Email: ejenkins@jenkinslawfirmapc.com BEST BUY: Fails to Honor Price Match Guarantee, Dima Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT DIMA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY COMPANY, INC. d/b/a/ BEST BUY CO. OF MINNESOTA; BESTBUY.COM, LLC; BEST BUY STORES, L.P.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-02869-VB (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023), arises out of Defendant's alleged deceptive and unfair price match policy. Despite prior litigation involving its "Price Match Guarantee", BEST BUY still maintains an unstated policy, practice and/or procedure of not honoring its "Price Match Guarantee" only now it involves BEST BUY's customers requesting that it match a specific designated online and/or local competitor's lower price. However, BEST BUY continues to advertise, promote and utilize its "Price Match Guarantee" despite its failure to honor the price match. Accordingly, the Defendants violated New York's General Business Law and committed unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief compelling Defendants to honor its price match policy, says the suit. Best Buy is one of the largest specialty retailers of consumer electronics in the US and Canada, with over 1,000 stores worldwide and 100,000 employees. It has multiple stores within the state of New York including, but not limited to, numerous stores within the metropolitan area of New York City and Westchester County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC One Grand Central Place 60 E. 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com BLOCK INC: Official Intelligence Sues Over Afterpay Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PTY LTD., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOCK, INC., JACK DORSEY, and JIM MCKELVEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02789 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2023) is a securities class action asserting claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 involving Defendants' offering and soliciting Afterpay shareholders to purchase Block's Class A common stock or CHESS Depositary Interests in connection with the Company's January 31, 2022 acquisition of Afterpay. On April 4, 2022, Block disclosed for the first time that a material data breach compromising the personal private data of millions of the Company's customers had taken place on December 10, 2021, i.e., prior to the closing of the acquisition, reflecting that the Company maintained an inadequate system of internal controls and causing the price of the Block Securities to fall precipitously, thereby damaging Plaintiff and other members of the Class. Subsequent disclosures confirmed that the Company maintained an inadequate system of internal control which had helped drive Block's reported rapid growth prior to the acquisition, causing a further material decline in the price of Block Securities, says the suit. The Plaintiff is bringing this action to recover damages for itself and a class consisting of Afterpay shareholders who acquired Block Securities and were damaged thereby, the suit contends. The Plaintiff acquired Block CHESS Depositary Interests in the acquisition in exchange for Afterpay shares it previously owned. Block, Inc. known as Square Inc. before December 10, 2021, is a global technology company with a focus on financial services, including Square, Cash App Investing LLC, Spiral, and TIDAL based in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. Michael J. Klein, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Fl. New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com mklein@aftlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com eitank@bgandg.com BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Zales Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridgestone Americas, Inc. The case is styled as Melissa Zales, on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Case No. 16-2023-CA-008333-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., April 11, 2023). The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil." Bridgestone Americas, Inc. -- https://www.bridgestoneamericas.com/en/index -- is a leading a global revolution in mobility and transforming the way people and goods move.[BN] BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Walker Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- JOHN WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL, INC. f/k/a OPES ACQUISITION CORP., JULIO RAMIREZ, IAN H. BAINES, BRYAN MCGUIRE, MICHAEL RABINOVITCH, and OPHIR STERNBERG, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-60657 (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired BurgerFi securities between December 17, 2020 and November 15, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. According to the complaint, on December 17, 2020, the Company announced that it had completed a business combination with BurgerFi International, LLC, a private Delaware limited liability company touted as "one of the nation's fastest-growing better burger concepts." As a result of this business combination, among other things, the Company purchased 100% of the membership interests of Legacy BurgerFi, resulting in Legacy BurgerFi becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and the Company changed its name to "BurgerFi International, Inc." On November 4, 2021, the Company completed its acquisition of Anthony's Coal Fired Pizza & Wings for $156.6 million. Defendant Ophir Sternberg, Executive Chairman of the Company, touted the Anthony's Acquisition as "a significant step forward in BurgerFi's ongoing growth strategy and transition into a premium multibrand platform." However, the complaint asserts that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had overstated the effectiveness of its acquisition and growth strategies; (ii) the Company had misrepresented to investors the purported benefits of Anthony's Acquisition and its post-business combination business and financial prospects; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit. On this news, BurgerFi's stock price fell $0.24 per share, or 10.57%, to close at $2.03 per share on November 16, 2022. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. BurgerFi International, Inc. previously operated as a blank-check company, also referred to as a special purpose acquisition company, which is a development stage company formed for the purpose of entering into a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, recapitalization, reorganization or other similar business transaction with one or more operating businesses or entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Schwamm, Esq. Scott L. Silver, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W Sample Rd. Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 755-4799 Facsimile: (954) 755-4684 E-mail: rschwamm@silverlaw.com ssilver@silverlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com gfbruckner@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM: Perotti Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Patrick Perotti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, Case No. 1:23-cv-03063 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2023), is brought as a result of the Defendant's failure to prevent the Data Breach and failure to properly maintained and adequately protected its systems, it could have prevented the Data Breach. According to Defendant, on November 15-16, 2022, "an unauthorized third party gained remote access to its systems and acquired certain information from its network, including documents containing personal information." (the "Data Breach"). The Personal Identifying Information ("PII") compromised in the Data Breach included individuals' name, Social Security number, and shareholding information. Defendant reports that it "took steps to stop the unauthorized access and began a thorough forensic investigation with the assistance of outside cybersecurity experts." The Defendant does not state when it learned of the Data Breach or when it launched its investigation. However, more than four months passed from the date of the breach until Defendant issued notice to Plaintiff. Approximately 93,211 individuals' PII was compromised in the Data Breach. The Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff dated March 30, 2023, notifying them of the Data Breach. The Defendant's letter also offered free credit monitoring services to those potentially impacted by the Data Breach. Defendant did not state why it was unable to prevent the Data Breach or which security feature failed. The Defendant did not state why it did not contact individuals about the Data Breach until over four months after the Data Breach occurred. The Defendant failed to prevent the Data Breach because it did not adhere to commonly accepted security standards and failed to detect that its databases were subject to a security breach. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions and omissions in failing to protect Plaintiff's PII, Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged. The Plaintiff and the Class have been placed at a substantial risk of harm in the form of credit fraud or identity theft and have incurred and will likely incur additional damages, including spending substantial amounts of time monitoring accounts and records, in order to prevent and mitigate credit fraud, identity theft, and financial fraud. Plaintiff has spent approximately 11 hours monitoring accounts and taking other actions to protect his PII in response to receiving the breach notification letter, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Ohio. The Defendant is a New York-based, international law firm, and is one of the oldest, law firms in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. Andrew C. White, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 1 North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, New York 10601 Phone: (914) 298-3281 Fax: (914) 908-6709 Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com awhite@fbfglaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Todd B. Naylor, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, Ohio 45242 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Romero Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- KEENAN ROMERO, SEAN BURRELL AND SHAYNEAL ABDULLAH, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01142 (E.D. La., April 3, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Louisiana's Final Wage Payment Act. The Plaintiffs assert claims for unpaid overtime wages on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to the collective action provisions of the FLSA due to Defendant's actions of failing to pay them overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiffs also assert a claim for unpaid final wages pursuant to the state law. Plaintiff Romero and Plaintiff Abdullah likewise assert an individual claim for retaliatory termination due to their efforts to exercise their rights under the FLSA. Finally, Plaintiff Burrell asserts a claim for retaliatory termination due to filing a Worker's Compensation claim in violation of Louisiana Laws Revised Statutes. Plaintiffs Romero, Burrell, and Abdullah worked for Defendant as unloaders from February 2022 to November 2022, from April 2022 to September 2022, and from August 2022 to November 2022, respectively. Capstone Logistics, LLC is in the business of providing third-party warehouse service providers, who provide, among other things unloading services to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599-5953 Facsimile: (888) 988-6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net CAPSULE CORP: Lopez Seeks Proper Overtime and Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Hector Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capsule Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02874 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by, among other things, failing to pay Plaintiff the appropriate overtime compensation and minimum wages and not paying him on a timely basis. Plaintiff Hector Lopez has worked for Defendants from in or around October 2022 to the present. More than 25% of Plaintiff's job duties were physical tasks, including lifting prescription bins and boxes of Defendant's merchandise, loading and unloading his delivery van, driving the delivery van to distribution points, and distributing delivery packages to Defendant's couriers. Despite Plaintiff qualifying as manual worker under the NYLL, the Defendant still pays him on a bi-weekly basis, says the Plaintiff. Capsule Corporation operates a pharmacy delivery service that allows its customers to order their medications online and have them delivered to their homes using a phone app.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810, New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com CATALYST BIOSCIENCES: Bushansky Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATALYST BIOSCIENCES, INC., AUGUSTINE LAWLOR, THOMAS EASTERLING, ANDREA HUNT, YING LUO, and NASSIM USMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0403 (Del. Ch., April 6, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public stockholders of Catalyst Biosciences, Inc., against the members of the board of directors of Catalyst and against Defendant Nassim Usman in his capacity as an officer of Catalyst, for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with their solicitation of the approval of Catalyst stockholders of the contributions and other transactions contemplated by the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated December 26, 2022, as amended on March 29, 2023 and the Business Combination Agreement, dated as of December 26, 2022, and as amended on March 29, 2023, also known as the proposed transactions, among Catalyst, GNI USA, GNI Group Ltd., GNI Hong Kong Limited, Shanghai Genomics, Inc., certain individuals listed on Annex A to the BCA, and Continent Pharmaceuticals Inc. On March 30, 2023, Catalyst filed a proxy with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed transactions. The proxy allegedly omits certain material facts that must be disclosed to Catalyst stockholders before the Stockholder Vote to enable them to cast fully informed votes with respect to the proposed transactions. According to the proxy, if the material nondisclosures are not cured in advance of the Stockholder Vote, Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of Catalyst will suffer the irreparable injury of an uninformed stockholder vote with respect to the proposed transactions that will fundamentally alter Catalyst stockholders investment in the Company. The Plaintiff seeks to (i) enjoin the Special Meeting and the Stockholder Vote with approval of the proposed transactions, as well as consummation of the proposed transactions, unless and until defendants cure the material nondisclosures through supplemental disclosures filed with the SEC at least seven days before the Special Meeting and Stockholder Vote on the Contributions and the other transactions contemplated by the F351 Agreement and the Business Combination Agreement; or (ii) in the event the proposed transactions are consummated, recover damages resulting from the individual Defendants' breach of their fiduciary duties. Catalyst is a biopharmaceutical company based in Richmond, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. Melissa M. Hartlipp, Esq. BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 803-4600 E-mail: rernst@bk-legal.com mhartlipp@bk-legal.com - and - Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. WEISS LAW 476 Hardendorf Ave. NE Atlanta, GA 30307 Telephone: (404) 692-7910 E-mail: mrogovin@weisslawllp.com CATALYST BIOSCIENCES: Scott Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Scott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CATALYST BIOSCIENCES, INC., NASSIM USMAN, AUGUSTINE LAWLOR, THOMAS EASTLING, ANDREA HUNT, and YING LUO, Case No. 2023-0423- (Del. Chancery Ct., April 11, 2023), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Catalyst Biosciences, Inc. ("Catalyst" or the "Company") against Catalyst and the members of Catalyst's Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants"), for breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Board's efforts to effectuate a reverse merger with GNI Group Ltd. ("GNI") and its affiliates in a two-step transaction. On December 26, 2022, Catalyst entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (as amended on March 29, 2023, the "Asset Purchase Agreement") with the GNI Sellers1, pursuant to which Catalyst acquired all of the assets and intellectual property rights primarily related to the GNI Sellers' proprietary Hydronidone compound (collectively, the "F351 Assets" or the "Purchased Assets"), other than related assets and intellectual property rights located in the People's Republic of China ("PRC") (the "Asset Purchase"). Catalyst acquired the F351 Assets for $35 million of value consisting of (i) CBIO common stock equal to 19.9% of its shares outstanding (6,266,521 shares of Catalyst common stock); and (ii) 12,340 shares of a new class of Catalyst Series X convertible preferred stock ("Catalyst Convertible Preferred Stock"), with conversion to Catalyst common stock subject to Catalyst stockholder approval (the "Conversion"). Simultaneously with the signing and closing of the Asset Purchase Agreement, on December 26, 2022, Catalyst entered into a Business Combination Agreement (as amended on March 29, 2023, the "Business Combination Agreement"), pursuant to which Catalyst will acquire an indirect controlling interest in Beijing Continent Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd ("BC"), a commercial-stage pharmaceutical company based in China. Pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement, Catalyst will acquire GNI's and the Minority Holders' approximately 65% controlling interest in BC in exchange for $300 million in Catalyst common stock (the "Contributions," and together with the Asset Purchase, the "Transactions"). In connection with the Transactions, the Company also distributed a $7.5 million special dividend to Catalyst stockholders on January 12, 2023, and granted a contingent value right ("CVR") 3 to Catalyst stockholders as of January 5, 2023. After completion of the Contributions, the combined company will be renamed "Gyre Therapeutics, Inc." and will continue to operate as a commercial stage organ fibrosis and inflammatory disease company listed on the Nasdaq. Following the Transactions, the Company's legacy stockholders will own approximately 2.5% of the combined company, GNI USA will own approximately 85.2% of the combined company, and the Minority Holders will own approximately 12.3% of the combined company. On March 30, 2023, the Company filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") to, among other things, recommend that Catalyst stockholders vote to approve the Issuances and the change of control resulting from the Transactions. The Proxy Statement fails to provide the Company's stockholders with material information and/or provides them with materially misleading information thereby rendering the stockholders unable to make an informed decision on whether to vote in favor of the Issuances and the Contributions. Specifically, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: any financial projections for BC and the F351 Assets, including the projections for the period ending 2023 through 2031 prepared by Catalyst management and relied upon by the Board's financial advisor, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. ("Raymond James"); a summary of Raymond James' financial analyses performed in connection with its fairness opinion provided in connection with the Transactions, including its "discounted cash flow analysis with respect to BC and the Purchased Assets based upon the Projections" (Proxy Statement at 120) and Raymond James' fairness opinion letter; the compensation Raymond James received in connection with its engagement on the proposed Transactions, the services Raymond James provided to Catalyst in the prior two years and the related compensation received, and whether Raymond James has provided any services to or received any compensation from the GNI Parties, or the Minority Holders and their respective affiliates in the prior two years; the identities of the Minority Holders; and whether the confidentiality agreements the Company entered into with 15 parties prior to the Asset Purchase contain "don't ask, don't waive" provisions that are still in effect and would prevent the parties from submitting a topping bid for the Company. In facilitating the proposed Transactions and disseminating the incomplete and misleading Proxy Statement, each of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed Contributions and the stockholder vote on the Issuances unless and/or until defendants cure their breaches of fiduciary duty, or, in the event it is consummated, recover damages resulting from the defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Catalyst. Catalyst is a biopharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. LONG LAW, LLC 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 729-9100 - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Kelly K. Moran, Esq. Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq. ACOCELLI LAW, PLLC 33 Flying Point Road, Suite 131 Southampton, NY 11968 Phone: (631) 204-6187 CONCENTRA INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Pascal Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAWRENCE PASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CONCENTRA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and JASON ARMS, DBA I Buy 901 Homes, Defendant, Case No. 22-15033 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment to Concentra. Pascal appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Concentra in a putative class action lawsuit brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo and affirms. It finds that Pascal's argument that Concentra violated the TCPA when it messaged him using Textedly, an online text-messaging service, is foreclosed by its decision in Borden v. eFinancial, LLC, 53 F.4th 1230 (9th Cir. 2022). In Borden, the Ninth Circuit held that a system constitutes an autodialer regulated by the TCPA only if it generates random or sequential telephone numbers. Because Textedly did not store or produce randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers, Concentra's text message was not sent to Pascal via use of an autodialer in violation of the TCPA. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/5yh2bf76 from Leagle.com. CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Court Dismisses Int'l House Suit W/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses the case, INTERNATIONAL HOUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-8705 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), without prejudice. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendant, which provides utility services to customers in New York, for overbilling its customers, not offering adequate refunds or credits, and refusing to provide interest on overpayments in violation of tariff terms. International House is a nonprofit corporation based in New York. The Defendant is a New York corporation based in New York. The Defendant provides electric and gas services to approximately 4.5 million customers in New York City and Westchester County, and steam service to approximately 1700 customers in Manhattan. It provides utility services pursuant to the terms and conditions of tariffs filed with the New York Public Service Commission. The Tariffs allow the Defendant to issue estimated monthly bills for its services under certain circumstances. Customers who receive estimated bills are often overcharged. The Defendant audits customer billings; if it learns that it overbilled or incorrectly billed a customer, it revises the bill downward and provides a credit or refund. Even when it learns that it has overbilled a customer, however, it almost never provides interest on the overpayment. The Tariffs provide that the Defendant will pay interest if an overpayment was erroneously made due to the Defendant's "own mistake." According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant could implement an internal auditing system capable of identifying overpayments within thirty days of billing but chooses not to so that it can benefit from its use of the customers' overpayments. It does not pay interest on overpayments "except in very narrow circumstances;" those circumstances purportedly apply to almost no customers. The Plaintiff brings the case on behalf of "all" of the Defendant's customers who, from Oct. 13, 2016 through Feb. 1, 2023: (1) received more than two consecutive estimated bills that resulted in overcharges; (2) did not receive a credit or refund within 30 days of the overcharge; and (3) were not provided interest on the overbilled amount (the "Class"). The Defendant's customers include any customer that receives electric, gas, and/or steam utility services from it at a property in New York City or Westchester County. The Class includes entities incorporated in a state other than New York and with principal places of business outside of New York state. The Defendant's customers provide the Defendant with a service address and, in some cases, a different billing address. Because the Defendant only serves properties in New York City and Westchester County, every service address is located in the state of New York. As of the second half of 2022, about 97.4% of the Defendant's current customers had mailing addresses within the state of New York. The Plaintiff filed the action on Oct. 13, 2022. The Plaintiff alleges that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), which allows plaintiffs to sue in federal court with only minimal diversity; CAFA is not available, however, if at least two thirds of the proposed class and the primary defendant are citizens of the forum state. Because the Defendant is a New York company serving New York customers pursuant to New York tariffs, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Caproni holds that the Court does not have federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because the Defendant has met its burden to assert the home state exception. Because the parties do not dispute that the Defendant is a citizen of New York, the Defendant needs to establish only that two thirds or more of the putative class members are New York citizens for the home state exception to apply. The Defendant easily satisfies that requirement. As a preliminary matter, Judge Caproni finds that the Defendant only services properties in New York. Although some of the Defendant's customers may live elsewhere and have only a second home in New York or may be entities incorporated and based in states other than New York, over 97% of its customers have New York billing addresses. Reinforcing this conclusion, even the Plaintiff was unable to identify a single putative class member that is certainly not a New York citizen. Judge Caproni opines that although the Plaintiff identified three entity class members incorporated outside of New York, its declaration in response to the Court's order questioning subject-matter jurisdiction does not include any facts regarding the principal places of business or members of those entities, which may well be based in New York. Finally, even if only one third of the putative class were comprised of New York citizens, Judge Caproni says the Court would decline to exercise jurisdiction under CAFA's discretionary exception. The case is about a New York company's alleged practice of overbilling New York customers for utility services solely provided in New York pursuant to Tariffs filed with New York's Public Service Commission in contravention of New York law. This is exactly the type of local case that Congress envisioned would remain in state court. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Caproni dismisses without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2b697ta6 from Leagle.com. DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Heppard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Heppard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-10834-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich., April 11, 2023), is brought as a result of the Defendant's practices and policies of not paying the Plaintiff wages for all hours worked, including overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated retail store associates were subjected to the same willful and unlawful practice in which Defendant failed to pay them for all hours worked at the end of their shifts, hours worked off-the-clock, and overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed with Defendant as a full-time retail store associate at the Dunham's Sports located in Hillsboro, Ohio. The Defendant owns and operates over 240 sporting goods stores in over 20 states under the trade name "Dunham's Sports."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com EDELMAN FINANCIAL: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edelman Financial Services LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Edelman Financial Services LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03074 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Edelman Financial Engines -- https://www.edelmanfinancialengines.com/ -- offers investing and financial planning services, wealth management, retirement planning, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal FIVE9 INC: Przywara Sues Over Wiretapping Electronic Communications ------------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Przywara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIVE9, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01757-LB (N.D. Cal., April 12, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to various pregnancy center and pregnancy resource websites, including the Women's Center West (womenscenterwest.com) and Option Line (optionline.org) websites (the "Websites"). These Websites employ Five9, a third party, to provide chat functions on the Websites. The electronic communications made in the chat function are routed through the servers of and are used by Five9 to, among other things, secretly observe, record, and analyze Website visitors' electronic communications in real time, including the entry of Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI"). By doing so, Defendant has violated Florida's Security of Communications Act ("The Wiretap Statute") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by Five9 on any Website via the Option Line Chat, a version of Defendant's API product, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is currently pregnant and accessed the website for Women's Center West, a pregnancy resource center located in Maryland, on March 26, 2023. Five9 is a marketing software-as-a-service ("SaaS") company, primarily offering Customer Experience ("CX") software and applications focused on sales, customer service, marketing, automation, analytics, and application development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: jsmith@bursor.com FUN IN TRAMPOLINE: Faces Liappes Suit Over Wage Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH LIAPPES, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plaintiff v. FUN IN TRAMPOLINE PARK, LLC and YAO ZHENG, HE LIN, QING QI LIN, and MEIXI ZHENG Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01284-VAB (D. Conn., April 6, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Wage Act. Plaintiff Leah Liappes and other similarly situated employees work or worked for Defendant, Fun In Trampoline Park, LLC, a recreational and amusement company located in Middletown, CT. She was hired as a cashier on or about Aug. 8, 2019. She asserts that Fun In Trampoline Park, LLC failed to pay them the mandated state and federal wages, including but not limited to minimum wage, for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek. She also contends that Defendant's timeclock rounding policy resulted in the failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime. Fun In Trampoline Park, LLC provides amusement and recreational activities to individuals of all ages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Bechtel, Esq. STANFIELD BECHTEL LAW, LLC 100 Riverview Center, Suite 130 Middletown, CT 06457 Telephone: (860) 516-4400 ext. 102 Facsimile: (860) 516-4401 E-mail: jbechtel@stanfieldbechtel.com GLOBAL MEDICAL RESPONSE: Baker Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Medical Response, Inc. The case is styled as Tyler Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Medical Response, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00907-KLM (D. Colo., April 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Global Medical Response, Inc. -- https://www.globalmedicalresponse.com/home -- operates as a medical transportation company. The Company offers medical care for emergency and relocation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and – Manuel Santiago Hiraldo HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com HARD ROCK CONCRETE: McCoy Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James McCoy, Patrick Mccoy, Wayne Holcomb, James Trafford, and Christopher Miranda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, known and unknown v. HARD ROCK CONCRETE CUTTERS, INC., Case No. 2023CH00576 was removed from the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02265. The Plaintiffs' Complaint allege unpaid double time and show-up time compensation, respectively, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). The Plaintiffs allege that the same conduct gives rise to their Complaint in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Noah A. Finkel, Esq. Julia M. Keenan, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606-6448 Phone: (312) 460-5000 Email: nfinkel@seyfarth.com jkeenan@seyfarth.com HILLTOP LODGING: Bowling Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Kentucky --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hilltop Lodging, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shondra Bowling, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Hilltop Lodging, Inc., Glenn Baker, being sued individually, Case No. 6:23-cv-00053-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky., April 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hilltop Lodging Inc. has been providing hotel, franchised from Hayward Since 2008.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Corey Asay, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. - LEX 333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1200 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 286-8368 Email: CAsay@forthepeople.com HOME ATTENDANT: Mirzamakhmudova Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Feruza Mirzamakhmudova, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. HOME ATTENDANT SERVICE OF HYDE PARK, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02760 (E.D.N.Y., April 12, 2023), is brought to seek redress for systematic underpayment of spread of hours and overtime wages, failure in provide wage notices, failure in keeping accurate employment records and failure in providing a non-discriminate working environment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), the New York Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), the New York Executive Law, New York City Administrative Code ("NYCAC"), New York Comp. Codes R. & Regs.("NYCCR") and other applicable regulations. The Defendant failed to maintain and preserve proper records required by law, failed to pay Plaintiffs correct overtime wages at one and one half times the basic minimum hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week, failed to pay the "spread of hours" premium required by law, failed to provide quality employment opportunity without discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant, who providing personal care and assistance to disabled and elderly clients of the Defendant. The Defendant a provider of home health care for the elderly and infirm in and around the City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sang J. Sim, Esq. SIM & DEPAOLA, LLP 4240 Bell Blvd, Suite 405 Flushing, NY 11361 Phone: (718) 281-0400 Email: psim@simdepaola.com HP INC: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Maryland Electrical's Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, YORK COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF YORK RETIREMENT FUND; MARYLAND ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. HP, INC.; DION J. WEISLER; CATHERINE A. LESJAK; RICHARD BAILEY; ENRIQUE LORES, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-15501 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's order dismissing Maryland Electrical's complaint on statute of limitations grounds and remands for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. In November 2015, the Hewlett-Packard Co. split into two entities: Appellee HP Inc. ("HP") and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. HP kept the Hewlett-Packard Co.'s consumer electronics and printing business, whereas Hewlett Packard Enterprise retained the Hewlett-Packard Co.'s corporate-facing technology infrastructure and services business. The heart of the newly-formed HP -- and the source of most of its profits -- is its printing supplies business. Generally, HP sells its printers at a loss, which it recovers over time through sale of printing supplies like toner and ink cartridges. During the period relevant to the case, HP sold its supplies through a "push model." Under this model, HP offered incentives to "Tier 1" distributors to purchase printing supplies. Those Tier 1 distributors, in turn, sold to "Tier 2" distributors who sold HP products to other resellers or to end users. To measure its channel inventory -- the total inventory that HP and its distributors had in stock -- HP created a metric called Weeks of Supply ("WOS"). WOS measured how many weeks HP could supply its products if sales continued at the same pace as that of prior weeks. HP calculated WOS by dividing its Tier 1 inventory by the average number of units sold in previous weeks. Tier 2 inventory was excluded from HP's WOS calculations. To shift more inventory from Tier 1 to Tier 2, sales managers engaged in two practices: gray marketing and pull-ins. Pull-ins, also known as accelerations, were steep discounts offered by HP to encourage distributors to take additional shipments in a given quarter. These pull-ins left Tier 2 and other downstream distributors with a full inventory at the beginning of the following quarter, deflating sales and creating the expectation that HP would offer discounts again later in the quarter. Together, these practices allowed HP to reach quarterly sales targets to the detriment of overall profits. HP did not disclose these practices to investors. Nor did HP disclose its WOS data, WOS targets, or how it calculated WOS. The Securities and Exchange Commission discovered these practices following a years-long investigation into HP. As a result of the investigation, the SEC issued an order instituting cease-and-desist proceedings against HP. Issued at the end of September 2020, the SEC Order accepted a settlement offer from HP, with HP agreeing to pay a $6 million fine without admitting or denying the allegations contained in the order. On Nov. 5, 2020, within six weeks of the issuance of the SEC Order, York County, a retirement fund and purchaser of HP stock, filed a class complaint against the Appellees, HP and a handful of its executives (jointly, "HP"). The complaint alleged that HP's trade practices violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. The complaint also alleged that the executive defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a). These violations, the complaint alleged, injured those who purchased HP common stock from Nov. 6, 2015 to June 2, 2016, the class period. York County filed its complaint as a class action under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Initially, York County sought designation as lead plaintiff. However, in January 2021, Maryland Electrical moved for appointment as lead plaintiff, which the district court granted the following month. Maryland Electrical filed a complaint consolidating class claims on April 21, 2021. HP moved to dismiss on procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, HP claimed that Maryland Electrical's claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations and the five-year statute of repose. On the merits, HP moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to plead the elements necessary to its claim with the particularity required by the PSLRA and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court granted the motion to dismiss as time-barred under the statute of limitations. That statute of limitations required Maryland Electrical to bring its complaint within "2 years after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation[s]" that form the basis of its securities claims. The district court found that the public statements, loss in profits, and reductions in channel inventory at the heart of Maryland Electrical's claims had all taken place by 2016. Thus, the district court reasoned, if Maryland Electrical was a reasonably diligent plaintiff, it would have discovered the operative facts of its complaint in 2016, more than four years before it filed its complaint and far beyond the two-year statute of limitations. The district court did not address HP's arguments under the statute of repose or Rule 9(b). After the district court explained that it was granting the motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, the district court observed in a footnote that HP made some of the statements at issue after Maryland Electrical had sold its shares of HP stock. Reasoning that a plaintiff cannot be harmed by misrepresentations that did not induce the purchase or sale of stock, the district court stated that Maryland Electrical lacked standing to assert claims for misrepresentations that occurred after it sold that last of its HP stock. The Ninth Circuit explains that plaintiffs alleging securities fraud must bring their claims within "2 years after the discovery of the facts" that give rise to their complaint. In this case, the district court held that Appellant Maryland Electrical failed to meet this timeline because its claim arose from allegedly fraudulent statements that were published roughly five years before it filed its complaint. The Ninth Circuit disagrees. It opines that the allegedly fraudulent statements, on their own, were insufficient to start the clock on the statute of limitations. Instead, it concludes that Maryland Electrical could not have discovered the facts necessary to plead its claims until after the publication of a SEC order in 2020. As a result, the Ninth Circuit holds that Maryland Electrical's complaint was timely under Section 1658(b)(1). Thus, it reverses and remands. The Ninth Circuit declines to rule on Maryland Electrical's standing as lead plaintiff, the statute of repose or the adequacy of Maryland Electrical's complaint. It expresses no opinion on those issues and leaves them for the district court to address in the first instance. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxtc84w from Leagle.com. Steven F. Hubachek -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- (argued), Darryl J. Alvarado -- dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- Rachel A. Cocalis -- RCocalis@rgrdlaw.com -- and Darren J. Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, California, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. Brian M. Lutz -- blutz@gibsondunn.com -- (argued), Michael J. Kahn -- mjkahn@gibsondunn.com -- and Macey L. Olave -- molave@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, California; Steven M. Schatz -- sschatz@wsgr.com -- (argued), Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, California; Sara B. Brody -- sbrody@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, California; Robin Wechkin -- RWECHKIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Issaquah, Washington; Lissa M. Percopo -- lpercopo@gibsondunn.com -- and Andrew D. Ferguson -- aferguson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; Katherine L. Henderson -- khenderson@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, San Francisco, California, for the Defendants-Appellees. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Overcharges Narcolepsy Drugs, MSP Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware series limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, PLC; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND, LTD.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS SPECIALTY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC.; CURASCRIPT, INC., d/b/a CURASCRIPT, SD; PRIORITY HEALTHCARE DISTRIBUTION, INC. d/b/a CURASCRIPT SD AND CURASCRIPT SPECIALTY DISTRIBUTION SD; CARING VOICE COALITION, and ADIRA FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-01591 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2023) arises from Defendants' alleged conspiratorial schemes to increase the unit price and quantity dispensed of Xyrem, which treats both cataplexy and excessive daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy; and Prialt, which is a non-opioid, non-NSAID analgesic agent approved for the management of severe chronic pain, referred collectively as Subject Jazz Drugs or Jazz Drugs. According to the complaint, the Defendants' schemes violated state and federal bribery laws thereby disqualifying claims for the Subject Drugs from payment. As a result, Plaintiffs' Assignors and the Class Members paid supra-competitive prices for the Subject Jazz Drugs for tainted and unpayable claims and for artificially inflated quantities of dispensed Subject Jazz Drugs, directly to Defendant Express Scripts, on behalf of beneficiaries enrolled in their health plans. Allegedly, Jazz and CVC created a scheme to circumvent the Congressionally mandated co-payment requirements designed to reduce sensitivity to the ever-increasing drug prices and increased dispensing of Jazz Drugs. The co-conspiring specialty pharmacies, including Express Scripts, CuraScript, Accredo Therapeutics, and BioScrip, would also refer patients to CVC, where they would then be paid by Jazz for doing so. Upon receiving copay assistance from CVC (using Jazz's funds), the specialty pharmacies would then generate and submit claims for payment directly to Assignors and Class Members, says the suit. As a result, the Assignors and Class Members were forced, and deceived into, paying tainted claims, at artificially increased prices for Jazz Drugs prescriptions, and for an increased quantity of claims for Jazz Drugs. This resulted in cognizable economic damages as the Assignors and Class Members paid substantially more for Jazz Drugs than they otherwise would have -- but for the Co-Payment Scheme. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to redress injuries caused to the Assignors and the similarly situated absent Class Members, because of Defendants' unlawful Scheme to increase the price and prescription volume of the Subject Jazz Drugs, the suit alleges. The Plaintiffs are companies that assist Government Healthcare Plans in detecting claims payments that are subject recoupment, either because they were conditional secondary payments or because there was fraud, mistake, or other recovery rights implicated by the payment. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, PLC is a biopharmaceutical company based in Ireland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (917) 471-1894 E-mail: Astraus@milberg.com - and - John W. Cleary, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com jcleary@msprecoverylawfirm.com - and - Shereef H. Akeel, Esq. Adam S. Akeel, Esq. Sam R. Simkins, Esq. Daniel W. Cermak, Esq. Hayden E. Pendergrass, Esq. AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC 888 W. Big Beaver Road 420 Troy, MI 48084 E-mail: shereef@akeelvalentine.com adam@akeelvalentine.com sam@akeelvalentine.com daniel@akeelvalentine.com hayden@akeelvalentine.com JP MORGAN: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Weichsel's TILA Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STUART WEICHSEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 21-3371 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's dismissal of Weichsel's claim under the Truth in Lending Act. Weichsel sued Chase for its alleged failure to itemize the annual fees on his credit card renewal notice in violation of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq. The Plaintiff holds a credit card account issued by Chase. A cardmember agreement governs the account. The agreement discloses that the Plaintiff's account has an "Annual Membership Fee" that will be added to his billing statement once a year. he agreement also states the Plaintiff may ask Chase to issue an additional card for an authorized user. The cardmember agreement includes a "Rates and Fees Table" that discloses the annual membership fee, and explains the fee is $450 plus $75 for each additional card. The Plaintiff does not dispute that his total annual fee was $525 because he had "previously opted to include one additional authorized user" on his credit card account. The Plaintiff alleges that his December 2019 billing statement included a renewal notice. The message stated that his "annual membership fee in the amount of $525.00 will be billed on 02/01/2020" and directed him to "please see the Annual Renewal Notice section of your statement disclosures for more information." The renewal notice did not, however, specify that the total annual fee of $525 comprised $450 for the primary cardholder and $75 for the additional card for an authorized user. The Plaintiff does not dispute that his total annual fee was $525 but rather complains that the renewal notice did not "individually itemize" the fee's two components: the base fee of $450 and the additional fee of $75. The annual membership fee later appeared as two separate fees on the Plaintiff's February 2020 billing statement. The billing statement contained one charge for $450 and another for $75, and each was labeled "ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE." The statement advised the Plaintiff, on a separate page, that the "annual membership fee is non-refundable unless you notify us that you wish to close your account within 30 days or one billing cycle (whichever is less) after we provide the statement on which the annual membership fee is billed." The Plaintiff paid the full $525 fee in February 2020 but now claims that had he been aware he could retain access to his credit card for $450, he would have paid only that amount. The Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, alleging that Chase's failure to itemize each component of the renewal fee in the December 2019 renewal notice violated TILA and Regulation Z. He seeks $1 million on behalf of himself and the putative class, or up to $5,000 in individual statutory damages. Chase filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of Article III standing, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The District Court granted the motion, holding that the Plaintiff had standing because he suffered an economic injury based on his assertion that he would not have paid the full $525 if he had known it included the additional card fee, but he had failed to allege a TILA violation because neither "TILA nor Regulation Z expressly mandates disclosure of each individual component of the total annual fee for a credit card account in a renewal notice." The Court observed that Regulation Z requires itemization of fees on other disclosures, such as fees reported on a billing statement, but lacks such a requirement in the provisions governing renewal notices, which strongly suggests that no such requirement was intended. The Plaintiff appeals. The Third Circuit opines that the Plaintiff has plausibly traced a connection between the purported procedural violation and his monetary injury, and so he has standing. Because the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that he suffered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to Chase's conduct and could be redressed by a favorable decision, he has established Article III standing to bring the suit. Although the Plaintiff has standing, the Third Circuit opines that he has failed to allege that the Chase renewal notice violated TILA or Regulation Z. The Plaintiff's contention that TILA requires itemization of each component of the renewal fee lacks any basis. First, while there is an itemization requirement in the statutes and regulations governing periodic disclosures, the same requirement is not included in the statutes and regulations applicable to renewal notices. Second, renewal notices are not subject to the same disclosure requirements as solicitations and applications, which are provided to consumers before the parties have any relationship. The Third Circuit's conclusion is consistent with the purpose of TILA and Regulation Z. Before a consumer opens his account, he needs more detailed disclosures to be fully informed of the obligations he would take on. At account renewal, the "initial credit choice" has been made and thus detailed disclosures do not "particularly enhance" TILA's "primary goal" of ensuring that consumers are aware of their responsibilities when they first enter a credit agreement. Thus, neither TILA nor Regulation Z required Chase to itemize in the renewal notice the fees to be paid to keep the Plaintiff's account open. For these reasons, the Third Circuit affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/rfmwmzvw from Leagle.com. Brian L. Bromberg [ARGUED] Bromberg Law Office, 352 Rutland Road #1 Brooklyn, NY 11225, Counsel for the Appellant. Olivia Greene -- OLIVIA.GREENE@WILMERHALE.COM -- Noah A. Levine -- NOAH.LEVINE@WILMERHALE.COM -- [ARGUED] Alan E. Schoenfeld -- ALAN.SCHOENFELD@WILMERHALE.COM -- WilmerHale, 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007, Counsel for the Appellee. LESCO BUILDERS: Freeman Sues to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Freeman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LESCO BUILDERS, LLC AND TROY LESTER, Case No. 5:23-cv-00038 (E.D. Tex., April 11, 2023), is brought to recover overtime wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the Potential Class Members were (and are) paid as independent contractors on an hourly basis without payment of overtime wages. Specifically, the Defendant paid its Misclassified Workers an hourly wage for all hours worked for each week worked without the proper overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The decision by The Defendant not to pay proper overtime compensation to its Misclassified Workers was neither reasonable nor in good faith. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate its Misclassified Workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Misclassified Workers did not (and currently do not) perform work that meets the definition of exempt work under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Freeman worked for Lesco Builders. Lesco Builders is a building manufacturer in New Boston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Phone/Facsimile: 903-596-7100 Email: bhommel@hommelfirm.com LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Hammond Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Frank Hammond, individually and for others similarly situated v. LIFEPOINT HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00402-UNA (D. Del., April 11, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Like many companies across the United States, the Defendant uses Kronos timekeeping and payroll systems. In December 2021, Kronos experienced a ransomware attack that resulted in an outage to all Kronos timekeeping and payroll systems, including the Defendant's. As a result, the Defendant's non-exempt employees, including Hammond and the Putative Class Members, did not timely receive their agreed wages for the hours they actually worked during the Kronos outage. The Defendant easily could have implemented a system to accurately record time and properly pay these employees until the Kronos outage was resolved. But the Defendant did not do so. Instead, the Defendant paid Hammond and the Putative Class Members a set amount, regardless of the actual number of hours they worked during the Kronos outage. The Defendant foisted the costs of the Kronos outage onto the most vulnerable people in its workforce, shifting the economic burden onto its frontline workers who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages to make ends meet. The Defendant's failure to timely pay Hammond and the Putative Class Members proper wages, including overtime, for all hours worked violates the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for LifePoint as a Respiratory Therapist since June 2008, including during the Kronos outage. LifePoint bills itself as a "national diversified healthcare delivery network with facilities from coast to coast."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sue L. Robinson, Esq. Brain E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Phone: 302-777-0300 Facsimile: 302-777-0301 Email: srobinson@farnanlaw.com bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com LIP BAR: Faces Dewberry Suit Over Unfair Biometric Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ SYLVIA DEWBERRY, an Illinois resident, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LIP BAR, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02168 (N.D. Ill., 1:23-cv-02168) alleges that the Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting the face geometry data without prior consent from its website visitors who used the Virtual Try-On feature. Allegedly, Defendant's only attempt at providing any kind of disclosure to Plaintiff and the class members came in the form of a link to a privacy policy at a link at the bottom of the www.thelipbar.com website. However, this policy did not inform the user how the user's face geometry is collected, used, or retained in order to allow the Virtual Try-On feature to operate or otherwise. Furthermore, Defendant lacked a publicly available written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers or biometric information obtained from consumers, as required by BIPA. The Lip Bar, Inc. (TLB) is a corporation organized and validly existing under the laws of Delaware. Headquartered in Detroit, MI, TLB sells its products through its website, and at various retail stores throughout the US and Illinois including Walmart and Target.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com MARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL: Kostov Sues Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kostov, individually and for others similarly situated v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District d/b/a Valleywise Health, an Arizona special healthcare district, Case No. 2:23-cv-00613-ROS (D. Ariz., April 11, 2023), is brought recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But the Defendant did not pay them for all the hours they worked. Instead, the Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from these employees' work time for so-called meal breaks. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were thus not paid for that time. But the Defendant failed to provide The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members with bona fide meal breaks. Instead, the Defendant required The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Membersto remain on-duty throughout their shifts and continuously subjects them to interruptions, including during their unpaid "meal breaks." The Defendant's auto-deduction policy violates the FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for The Defendant as an Emergency Department Tech at The Defendant's Maryvale facility in Phoenix, Arizona. Valleywise Health operates hospitals and other healthcare facilities across Maricopa County, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602.328.0262 Facsimile: 602.926.1479 Email: srandall@randallslaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713.352.1100 Facsimile: 713.352.3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com MEDIA RESEARCH: Discloses Subscriber’s Personal Info, Dicker Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHALL DICKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00453 (E.D. Va., April 6, 2023) arises out of Defendant's violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff is a subscriber of Defendant's website, cnsnews.com, which offers, inter alia, a wide array of prerecorded video content. Allegedly, Media Research Center unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's personally identifiable information (PII) to Facebook without his consent. In addition, Defendant monetizes its Websites by knowingly collecting and disclosing its subscribers' PII to Facebook, namely data that personally identifies subscribers and the videos they view. When someone watches a video on Defendant's Websites, the video name and the viewer's Facebook ID are simultaneously sent to Facebook via Facebook Pixel, a code analytics tool, says the suit. Media Research Center is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business at 1900 Campus Commons Drive, Suite 600, Reston, VA. As a media publishing company, it developed, owns, and/or operates a platform of websites, including cnsnews.com, mrctv.org, and newbusters.org. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Erlich, Esq. THE ERLICH LAW OFFICE, PLLC 2111 Wilson Blvd. Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 791-9087 Facsimile: (703) 351-9292 E-mail: jerlich@erlichlawoffice.com - and - Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Lance Spitzig, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: ncoulson@lsccounsel.com lspitzig@lsccounsel.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Homaidan's Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, In re: HILAL KHALIL HOMAIDAN, aka Helal K Homaidan, Chapter 7, Debtor. In re: REEHAM YOUSSEF, aka Reeham Navarro Youssef, aka Reeham N. Youssef, Chapter 7, Debtor. HILAL KHALIL HOMAIDAN on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and REEHAM YOUSSEF, Plaintiffs v. SALLIE MAE, INC., NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case Nos. 08-48275-ess, 13-46495-ess, Adv. Pro. No. 17-1085-ess (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Elizabeth S. Stong of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion seeking nationwide certification of an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) and a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). On Dec. 4, 2008, Mr. Homaidan filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, Case No. 08-48275. On Dec. 19, 2008, he filed his schedules and statements, and on March 9, 2009, he filed certain amended schedules. In his Schedule F, "Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claims," he listed "Tuition Answer" loans owed to Sallie Mae in the amounts of $7,983.19 and $8,190.11. On Jan. 15, 2009, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a "no-asset" report stating that the estate has no non-exempt property to distribute. On April 9, 2009, the Court entered an order discharging Mr. Homaidan, and on that same day, his bankruptcy case was closed. On April 14, 2017, Mr. Homaidan moved to reopen his bankruptcy case to obtain a determination of the dischargeability of certain of his student loans, and on May 26, 2017, the Court entered an order reopening the case. On Oct. 29, 2013, Ms. Yousse filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, In re Reeham Youssef, Case No. 13-46495. On Oct. 29, 2013, she filed her schedules and statements. In her Schedule F, "Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claims," she listed "Student Loans" owed to Sallie Mae in the amounts of $9,055, $13,413, $6,415, $35,580, $23,596, $4,095, $16,275, and $29,493. On Dec. 13, 2013, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a "no-asset" report stating that the estate has no non-exempt property to distribute. On Feb. 6, 2014, the Court entered an order discharging Ms. Youssef, and on that same day, her bankruptcy case was closed. On Oct. 1, 2019, Ms. Youssef moved to reopen her bankruptcy case to obtain a determination of the dischargeability of certain of her student loans, and on Dec. 4, 2019, the Court entered an order reopening the case. On June 23, 2017, Mr. Homaidan commenced this adversary proceeding as a putative class action, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, by filing a complaint against SLM Corp., Sallie Mae, Inc., Navient Solutions, LLC, and Navient Credit Finance Corp. As to himself, Mr. Homaidan seeks a determination that certain debts that he incurred as a student are not nondischargeable student loan debts under Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(8)(B), and an award of damages, including attorneys' fees and costs, for Navient's willful violations of the bankruptcy discharge order entered in his case. And as to the class, he seeks the same the relief. On Oct. 30, 2017, Navient filed a motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss the Adversary Proceeding and a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Compel or Dismiss. On July 25, 2018, the Court issued a memorandum decision on the Motion to Compel or Dismiss and denied the motion to the extent it sought to compel arbitration of Mr. Homaidan's claims. On Jan. 31, 2019, it issued a second memorandum decision on the Motion to Compel or Dismiss and denied the motion to the extent it sought to dismiss the Adversary Proceeding. On Feb. 14, 2019, Navient filed a notice of appeal to the District Court of the Court's order denying the request to dismiss the Adversary Proceeding. Thereafter, on Oct. 21, 2019, Mr. Homaidan filed an amended complaint to add Ms. Youssef as a named plaintiff and proposed class representative. On Dec. 18, 2019, the Court entered an Order permitting amendment of the complaint to add Ms. Youssef as a named plaintiff and a proposed class representative. On Dec. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking three forms of relief: an order certifying a nationwide class in this Adversary Proceeding, an order for partial summary judgment on liability and restitution, and a preliminary injunction (together, the "Pending Motions"). The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (the "Putative Class Members"), seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages arising from Sallie Mae. Inc. and Navient's alleged "pattern and practice" of violating the discharge injunction provided by Bankruptcy Code Section 542(a)(2). They allege that for the last 10 years, the Defendants have engaged in a massive effort to defraud student debtors and to subvert the orderly working of the bankruptcy courts. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants represented to student debtors that the Bankruptcy Code prohibited discharge of any loan made to any person for any educational purpose. They claim that Navient failed to disclose facts and information that would inform debtors of the fact that private loans were only non-dischargeable if they met the requirements of section 523(a)(8)(B), and in particular, that Class Members' nonqualified loans were, in fact, discharged in bankruptcy. The Plaintiffs request that the Court declares that the Plaintiffs and the Class Members' debts were discharged upon the entry of the applicable statutory bankruptcy discharge injunctions, because they are not student loans excluded from discharge under Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(8). They seek permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Navient from continuing to seek collection on the Plaintiffs and Class Members' discharged debts. The Plaintiffs also request that since Navient was notified of the Plaintiffs and Class Members' discharge orders pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 4004(g), and still sought to collect on these debts by use of "dunning letters, phone calls, negative reports made to credit bureaus, failure to update credit reports, and commencing or continuing legal action to recover these debts in violation of Bankruptcy Code Section 524, the Court should cite Navient for civil contempt for is willful violations of the Discharge Order, and order it to pay damages in an amount to be determined at trial pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 524 and 105, and also to pay the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. As stated in the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to maintain the action on behalf of themselves and as representatives of Putative Class Members who: obtained private Tuition Answer loans in amounts that exceeded the Cost of Attendance; were never issued or designated to be issued 1098-E tax forms to deduct the interest payments from their federal tax returns; have never reaffirmed any pre-petition Tuition Answer loan; and have nonetheless been subjected to Defendants' attempts to induce payment on discharged debts and have or have not repaid these loans since bankruptcy. The Plaintiffs allege that the action and the proposed class satisfy the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and the requirement of ascertainability necessary for class certification under Rule 23(a). Navient opposes the certification of a class. Judge Stong notes that the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion calls for the Court to address two questions, and each is important. First, as a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether it has the jurisdiction to certify a nationwide class action for violations of discharge injunctions, or if its jurisdiction is limited, as a matter of law, to a class of members who received their discharges in the Eastern District of New York. Next, the Court must determine whether the Plaintiffs have shown that each of the four Rule 23(a) prerequisites is satisfied and, if so, whether the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) have been met, all by a preponderance of the evidence. With respect to the first question, Judge Stong concludes that the Court has the authority to certify a nationwide class if all of the requirements for certification are met. With respect to the second question, she finds and concludes that the Plaintiffs have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is appropriate to consider the question of the certification of a class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b) in the framework of the class as proposed in the Class Certification Motion -- that is, individuals who attended or intended to attend Title IV institutions and who received private loans that are owned or serviced by Navient which exceeded the "cost of attendance" at those institutions as defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 221(d), who received bankruptcy discharges after Oct. 17, 2005, who have been the subject of collection activities by Navient, and who have not reaffirmed their loans. Judge Stong next considers the four prerequisites to class certification set forth in Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. She finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have presented evidence that more than 31,000 people received direct-to-consumer loans for which Navient did not receive certifications that the loans were within the cost of attendance; (ii) the Plaintiffs have identified several questions of both law and fact that are common to the Putative Class Members; (iii) the fact that the forms or titles of the loans are not identical does not defeat typicality; (iv) the record shows that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated their general knowledge of the case and willingness to participate in the action -- that is, fairly and adequately to represent the class; and (v) the Plaintiffs' counsel is qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation. Finally, in addition to the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), the Plaintiffs must show that the proposed class is ascertainable. Judge Stong finds that the Plaintiffs have shown that the proposed class is ascertainable because class membership is based on discernable, objective criteria: each Putative Class Member's direct-to-consumer private student loan, each Putative Class Member's "cost of attendance," and each Putative Class Member's other loans, grants, or scholarships. The next step in considering the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion is the question of whether they have met their burden to show that the proposed class also conforms to at least one of the subsections of Rule 23(b). The Plaintiffs seek certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class for injunctive relief and a Rule 23(b)(3) class for damages. Judge Stong holds that declaratory and injunctive relief will clarify and settle the significant legal and factual issues with general application to the class and to Navient. It will also afford relief from the uncertainty of whether the loans at issue are discharged in bankruptcy and therefore not collectible. The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). Certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) is allowed where common questions predominate over individual questions, and the class action vehicle is superior to other possible methods of "fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." The second subject for the Court's consideration in determining whether a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class should be certified is whether "a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Judge Stong holds that the case principally concerns a common set of "questions of law and fact" that predominate over "questions affecting only individual members" of the putative class. In addition, nothing in the relief that the Plaintiffs seek, either in the context of the Class Certification Motion or in the adversary proceeding, would compromise or limit Navient's ability to assert a claim that a debtor procured a loan by fraudulent or dishonest means. Judge Stong also finds that the record shows that joinder of the Putative Class Members as individual parties to this action would be impracticable and that the "matters pertinent" noted in Rule 23 are consistent with the conclusion that a class action is superior to other methods fairly and efficiently to adjudicate these claims. Finally, on whether the proposed class is an impermissible fail-safe class, Judge Stong holds that the requirements and boundaries of the proposed class do not presuppose or predetermine whether Navient is liable, and nothing in the class definition imputes a liability determination to Navient. Rather, the criteria are objective and ascertainable, and they permit a determination on the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims and Navient's defenses, but they do not fix that result. That task remains for the parties to address, and ultimately, for the Court to decide. Based on the entire record and for the reasons stated, Judge Stong grants in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. She certifies a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for declaratory and injunctive relief, and a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(3) for damages. The members of each class will be all individuals who attended or intended to attend Title IV institutions and who received direct-to-consumer private loans owned or serviced by Navient which exceeded the "cost of attendance" at those institutions, as defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 221(d); who obtained bankruptcy discharges after Oct. 17, 2005; who were subsequently subjected to Navient's acts to collect on those loans; and who have not reaffirmed their loans. An order in accordance with the Memorandum Decision will be entered simultaneously with therewith. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2023 Memorandum Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/bp5c3w3s from Leagle.com. George F. Carpinello, Esq. -- gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- Adam Shaw, Esq. -- ashaw@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Albany, NY, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Jason W. Burge, Esq. -- JBurge@fishmanhaygood.com -- Kathryn J. Johnson, Esq., Fishman Haygood LLP, New Orleans, LA, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Lynn E. Swanson, Esq. -- lswanson@jonesswanson.com -- Peter N. Freiberg, Esq., Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, New Orleans, LA, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Thomas M. Farrell, Esq. -- tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, JPMorgan Chase Tower, Houston, TX, Attorneys for the Defendants. Shawn R. Fox, Esq. -- sfox@mcguirewoods.com -- Joseph A. Florczak, Esq. -- jflorczak@mcguirewoods.com -- Dion W. Hayes, Esq. -- dhayes@mcguirewoods.com -- K. Elizabeth Sieg, Esq. -- bsieg@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for the Defendants. NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Class Settlement in Hook Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL HOOK, DAVID SEMAN, BARBARA BROWN, LARRY ONDAKO, and JULIA ONDAKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, d/b/a, NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS RESORT; NEMACOLIN, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and NWL, CO., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00387-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Parties move the Court, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for final approval of the Parties' proposed Amended Settlement and certification of the Settlement Class as defined in the Amended Settlement Agreement. The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement on January 19, 2023. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KuhLnx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joy D. Llaguno, Esq. HOOK & HOOK PLLC 430 East Oakview Drive, Suite 101 Waynesburg, PA 15370 Telephone: (724) 802-7144 Facsimile: (724) 802-7959 E-mail: jllaguno@hooklaw.com - and - William E. Blick, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 707 Grant Street, Suite 3800 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 577-7400 Facsimile: (412) 347-5461 E-mail: wblick@grsm.com NEW YORK, NY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to April 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sow et al v. City Of New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00533-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order extending the class certification deadlines as follows: Current Date Proposed Date -- Class Certification motions: March 31, 2023 April 30, 2023 -- Response from the City: May 10, 2023 June 9, 2023 -- Reply to City's response: May 10, 2023 June 9, 2023 New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MyZesC 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. BELDOKC LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, PH/26th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 490-0400 Facsimile: (212) 277-5880 E-mail: jmoore@blhny.com drankin@blhny.com ldroubi@blhny.com dazizi@blhny.com rpattiz@blhny.com qadams@blhny.com rpowers@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, Esq. GIDEON ORION OLIVER 277 Broadway, Suite 150 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 jessica@femmelaw - and - Massai 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 NORTHSTAR EMS: Horton Files Suit in N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against NorthStar EMS, Inc. The case is styled as Dustin Horton, on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly situated v. NorthStar EMS, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-00468-ACA (N.D. Ala., April 11, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. NorthStar EMS, Inc. -- https://www.northstar-ems.us/ -- provides ambulance services. The Company offers transportation, dispatch, billing and collection, training and education, community, vehicle maintenance, and consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Kristian W Rasmussen, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 2701 S. Le Jeune Rd., Floor 10 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (786) 206-8306 x 5224 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: krasmussen@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com NSC TECHNOLOGIES: Class Settlement in Thompson Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR THOMPSON, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. NSC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability corporation; BAE SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00371-JO-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order granting: (1) the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement, and (2) plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The Settlement Agreement defines the "Class" or "Class Members" as: "all individuals employed by NSC and placed to work at the BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc. facility at 2205 E. Belt Street in San Diego, California (BAE SDSR), as hourly non-exempt employees between January 10, 2016, and the earlier of the date of Preliminary Approval or August 8, 2021." This period of January 10, 2016, and the earlier of the date of Preliminary Approval or August 8, 2021 is defined as the "Class Period. " The Class includes 1,745 persons, and the Class Period includes 73,650 workweeks. Declaration Of Jarrod Salinas With Respect To Notice And Settlement Administration. The monetary terms of the Settlement Agreement are summarized in the following table: Description of Amount Amount -- Class Settlement Amount: $2,853,572.09 -- Est. Class Counsel Fees: ($951,190.70) -- Est. Class Counsel Costs: ($39,415.78) -- Class Rep Award: ($15,000.00) -- PAGA Payment/LWDA: ($100,000.00) -- Phoenix Admin. Fees: ($15,000.00) -- Employer Taxes: ($49,657.52) -- Net Settlement Fund $1,683,308.09 (not including 25% of PAGA payments): NSC is a staffing firm that specializes in placing qualified skilled, technical, and professional talent in any market. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o46JxI at no extra charge.[CC] OAKLEY INC: Overcharges Tax Rate for Products' Sales, Fantroy Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARK FANTROY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OAKLEY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00433-SEP (E.D. Mo., April 6, 2023), arises out of Defendant's unjust enrichment and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Plaintiff Mark Fantroy alleges that Oakley, Inc. required him to pay a 9.99% tax rate when he purchased a pair of Standard Issue Fuel Cell Tonal Thin Red Line sunglasses from Oakley's website on Nov. 10, 2022. According to the Missouri Department of Revenue, the applicable use tax rate for sales of products through remote sales channels that are shipped by Defendant from an out-of-state facility is 6.475%. Mr. Fantroy asserts that Oakley violated the MMPA by illegally and erroneously overcharging him tax monies at a higher tax rate than the correct applicable use tax rate on products purchased through remote sales channels. Oakley Inc. is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Foothill Ranch, CA. It conducts business in Missouri through remote sales channels, including making sales through its internet website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com jwolloch@bursor.com OLD DOMINION: Kararo Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN KARARO, individually, and on behalf of all other Illinois citizens similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02187 (C.D. Ill., April 6, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated Section 15(a) of the Biometric Privacy Act. The Defendant's time clock system utilized, collected, stored, and otherwise obtained the unique biometric identifiers of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in violation of the prohibition set forth by BIPA. However, Defendant does not maintain a public policy that identifies its data retention and destruction protocols. Moreover, Plaintiff John Kararo alleges that Defendant unlawfully retained his biometric data even after the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such identifiers or information has been satisfied, says the suit. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that maintains its corporate office in Thomasville, NC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. VLAHAKIS LAW GROUP LLC 20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3300 Chicago IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 766-0511 (312) 648-6127 E-mail: jamesv@vlahakislaw.com PRAIRIE IT LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prairie IT LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Prairie IT LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03015 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Prairie IT -- https://www.prairieit.com/ -- is focused on providing solutions that turn outdated PC's into useful high performance PC's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com PREGIS LLC: Bazinett Sues Over Failure to Pay Weekly Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Bazinett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PREGIS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02246 (N.D. Ill., April 10, 2023), is brought under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff on a weekly basis. New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. The Defendant has violated this law by paying its manual workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff therefore demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees individual and on behalf of a putative class comprised of all manual workers employed by the Defendant in New York State over the last six years, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from April 2021 to October 2021 as a shipper/receiver at a Pregis location in Glens Falls, New York. The Defendant is a leading global manufacturer of flexible packaging and protective packaging solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com PRETTY GIRL CURVES: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pretty Girl Curves, Inc. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pretty Girl Curves, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02991 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pretty Girl Curves -- https://www.prettygirlcurves.com/ -- is the leading brand of fajas & waist trainers for women.[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 PRIMEX FARMS LLC: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primex Farms, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alex Gonzalez, and all others similarly situated v. Primex Farms, LLC, Case No. BCV-23-101065 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 7, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Primex Farms, LLC -- http://www.primex.us/-- are a fourth generation grower, processor and international trader and exporter of nuts and dried fruits, making us a vertically integrated company.[BN] RATNER COMPANIES: Olsen Sues Over Hair Stylists' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE OLSEN, COURTNEY HOLLAND, CYNTHIA COLE, JENNIFER CHANCEY, COURTNEY JONES, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DENNIS RATNER, JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, fictitious persons, ABC CORP. 1-10, fictitious entities, Defendants, Case No. 9:23-cv-80619 (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standard Act by failing to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage when due for the hours they worked. Allegedly, the Defendants also violated the New Jersey Wage Payment Law by failing to pay the full amount of wages due to the Plaintiffs on April 7, 2020 and that covers the hours worked between March 15, 2020 and March 28, 2020. Plaintiff Nicole Olsen has been employed by the Defendants as a hair stylist since 1994. On or about March 21, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, Defendants ceased operations at all retail locations across the country. This action came in the middle of a pay period that originally began on March 15, 2020. While the business ceased operations, Defendants released conflicting information about how the employees would be paid for they had already worked. Finally, Defendants disclosed to Plaintiffs they decided not to pay any wages owed for hours employees had worked, says the suit. Ratner Companies is the Virginia-based parent company of hair salon subsidiaries, the largest of which is Hair Cuttery, a unisex hair salon, the largest privately held hairdressing chain in the US with 492 locations, including 148 locations in the state of Florida. Dennis Ratner is the founder and CEO of Ratner Companies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron M. Clemens, Esq. ROMANO LAW GROUP Palm Beach International Towers 1601 Belvedere Rd., Ste. 500-S West Palm Beach, FL 33406-1551 E-mail: service@romanolawgroup.com john@romanolawgroup.com aaron@romanolawgroup.com sally@romanolawgroup.com RB HEALTH: Loses Bid to Dismiss DiGiacinto's 1st Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOSEPH DIGIACINTO, Plaintiff v. RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-04690-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies RB Health's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. DiGiacinto filed the putative class action against RB Health alleging false, misleading, and deceptive marketing practices with respect to the labeling of its "Children's Delsym Cough Relief" product. RB Health makes, labels, distributes, sells, and markets two separate Delsym Cough Relief products: one advertised and marketed for adults, "Delsym Cough Relief," and one marketed and advertised for children, "Children's Delsym Cough Relief." DiGiacinto alleges that RB Health created and marketed one Product as specially formulated for children and that Product was sold at a premium even though both products are identical in terms of the form and quantity of ingredients. He alleges that the labeling on the front of both products' packaging is misleading because reasonable consumers believe that there is something different about the adults' Delsym Cough Relief product and the Children's Delsym Cough Relief product that makes the Children's Product better suited or more appropriate for children. DiGiacinto alleges that he purchased the children's product several times throughout the class period in reliance on the Product's claims that the Product was formulated specifically for children. Based on the representations, he believed that the Product was specially formulated for children and bought it specifically for this reason. He alleges that he would not have bought the children's product had he known that it was identical to the adults' product, and that he paid a premium for the children's product due to the misleading labelling on its packaging. Had he known the truth, he alleges, he could have purchased the same Product for less per ounce than he paid. Based on these allegations, DiGiacinto asserts the following claims for relief: 1) violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; 2) violation of the False Advertising Law ("FAL), California Business & Professions Code section 17500 et seq.; 3) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code section 1750 et seq.; 4) breach of express warranties under California Commercial Code section 2313(a); 5) breach of implied warranties under California Commercial Code section 2314; 6) negligent misrepresentation; 7) intentional misrepresentation/fraud; and 8) quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. DiGiacinto seeks to represent a nationwide class of allegedly similarly situated persons, defined as: All U.S. citizens who purchased the Product in their respective state of citizenship for personal and household use and not for resale during the Class Period. He also seeks to represent the following California subclass: All California citizens who purchased the Product in California for personal and household use and not for resale during the Class Period. DiGiacinto brings claims one through three on behalf of himself and the California subclass. He brings claims four through eight on behalf of himself, the nationwide class, and the California subclass. RB Health now moves to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It argues that the FAC fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). It also asserts that DiGiacinto lacks Article III standing to pursue his claims. As Article III standing is a jurisdictional issue, Judge Ryu must first address that argument before reaching the merits of any 12(b)(6) challenges to the sufficiency of pleading. With respect to standing, Judge Ryu finds that the FAC alleges a plausible, non-hypothetical causation chain between RB Health's allegedly misleading packaging and DiGiacinto's injury. Accordingly, DiGiacinto has established causation for purposes of pleading Article III standing. Judge Ryu further finds that the allegations in the FAC are sufficient as a matter of pleading to confer standing to seek injunctive relief because DiGiacinto alleges that he will not be able to trust RB Health's claims about the children's product in the future. She concludes that DiGiacinto has sufficiently alleged standing to seek injunctive relief. Turning to the sufficiency of the FAC, Judge Ryu says takes the FAC's allegations about the packaging of the children's product as true and construe all reasonable inferences in DiGiacinto's favor. She concludes that the FAC plausibly alleges that the packaging of the children's product, which contains the word "children" and a cartoon of a child but no express disclosure that the medicine in the bottle contains the same concentration of the active ingredient as the adult's product, could mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the children's product is specially formulated for children. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims is denied. As she has already found that the allegations are sufficient to state a claim under the reasonable consumer standard, Judge Ryu holds that they are likewise sufficient to state a claim for breach of express warranty. Hence, RB Health's motion to dismiss the express warranty claim is denied. Since the breach of express warranties claim is sufficiently pleaded, Judge Ryu denies the motion to dismiss the breach of implied warranties claim. She holds that DiGiacinto does not have to allege that the challenged product is unfit for its purpose in order to make out an implied warranty of merchantability claim. Further, when an implied warranty of merchantability cause of action is based solely on whether the product in dispute conforms to the promises or affirmations of fact on the packaging of the product, the implied warranty of merchantability claim rises and falls with express warranty claims brought for the same product. Judge Ryu also denies RB Health's motion to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim. She says district courts in the Ninth Circuit are split on the issue of whether the economic loss rule bars negligent misrepresentation claims. However, the Ninth Circuit has held that California law classifies negligent misrepresentation as a species of fraud for which economic loss is recoverable. The motion to dismiss the intentional misrepresentation/fraud claim is also denied. Judge Ryu says the elements of a claim for intentional misrepresentation/fraud are: (1) a misrepresentation or omission of a fact that should have been disclosed; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (4) resulting damage. And the FAC adequately alleges these elements. Finally, the FAC alleges that RB Health's "false and misleading labelling caused" DiGiacinto and the putative class members to purchase the children's product at a premium and that RB Health "received a direct and unjust benefit" at their expense. These allegations are sufficient to state a quasi-contract claim for relief. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim, which Judge Ryu construes as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution, is denied. For the foregoing reasons, RB Health's motion to dismiss the FAC is denied. RB Health will file an answer by May 2, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2sze45rf from Leagle.com. RCG LOGISTICS LLC: Prasad Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCG Logistics LLC, et al. The case is styled as Naveen Prasad, on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. RCG Logistics LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00337623-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 7, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited." RCG -- https://www.rcgauto.com/ -- provides nationwide automotive shipping and logistics solutions for businesses and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Rodriguez, Esq. SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC 1414 E Murray Holladay Rd. Holladay, UT 84117 Phone: 833-201-0213 RCI HOSPITALITY: Mbaye Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Edhadji Mbaye, and Modou Diop, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., Peregrine Enterprises Inc. (d/b/a Rick's Cabaret New York), RCI 33rd Ventures, Inc. (d/b/a Hoops Cabaret and Sports Bar), 48 West 33rd Street Corp. (d/b/a Hoops Cabaret and Sports Bar), RCI Dining Services (37th Street), Inc. (d/b/a Vivid Cabaret), Eric Langan, and Kes Senevi, Case No. 1:23-cv-02967 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, recovery of equipment costs, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL") and supporting New York Department of Labor ("NYDOL") Regulations, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"). During their employment, the Plaintiffs were not paid any wages for the hours they worked. The Plaintiffs only received gratuities from customers. In further violation of controlling federal and state labor laws, the Plaintiffs were also required to purchase "tools of the trade", including inter alia, cologne, mints, gum, and mouthwash, which Defendants required them to purchase. This is truly exploitative--and shameful. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit seeking recovery, for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, against Defendants' violations of the FLSA, NYLL, NYDOL, WTPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as bathroom attendants in Defendants adult night clubs. The Defendants own, operate and/or control a group of adult night clubs primarily doing business as "Rick's Cabaret", "Hoops Cabaret", and (iii) "Vivid Cabaret", located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Scarborough Sues Over Price Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------- MAURICE SCARBOROUGH and SCOTT SCHILLER, each individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02622 (C.D. Cal., April 6, 2023) alleges that the Defendants unlawfully manipulated market prices for the certain stocks and options and violated Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. This is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who held call options (collectively the "Affected Options") to purchase common stock in AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., GameStop Corp., American Airlines Group Inc., Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., BlackBerry Ltd., or American Depositary Shares of foreign issuers Nokia Corp. (collectively the "Affected Stocks"), as of the close of trading on Jan. 27, 2021, and who sold such Affected Options at a loss, or whose Affected Options expired between Jan. 28, 2021 and Feb. 19, 2021. The Plaintiffs allege that Robinhood's singular actions distorted the prices of the Affected Stocks and of the Affected Options for many weeks because of its domination of the online retail brokerage industry. Robinhood Financial, LLC is a brokerage company providing online and mobile application-based discount stock brokerage services that allow users to invest in publicly traded companies and exchange-traded funds. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maurice D. Pessah, Esq. PESSAH LAW GROUP, PC 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850E Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 772-2261 E-mail: maurice@pessahgroup.com - and - Stuart N. Chelin, Esq. CHELIN LAW FIRM 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (310) 556-9664 E-mail: stuart@chelinlaw.com - and - Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: jak@klafterlesser.com ROBINSON SPORTS: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robinson Sports, Inc. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Robinson Sports, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02993 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Robinson Sports -- https://robinsonsportsinc.com/ -- is a lacrosse club and event operator, committed to providing the nation's athletes with a best-in-class experience.[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 RUZE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruze, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ruze, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02982 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ruze Shoes -- https://www.ruzeshoes.com/ -- is a leading Internet retailer of men's 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 SALISBURY BANCORP: Continues to Defend Parshall Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Salisbury Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Parshall class suit in the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Litchfield, Connecticut. A purported class action lawsuit had been filed against Salisbury, NBT and each of the members of the board of directors of Salisbury in the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Litchfield, Connecticut captioned Parshall v. Salisbury Bancorp, Inc., et. al. (LLI-CV23-6033021), filed on March 28,2023. The Complaint alleges that the named directors of Salisbury breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement through an unfair and flawed process and by failing to make complete and accurate disclosures regarding this process and that Salisbury and NBT aid and abetted the alleged breaches. It seeks to enjoin the merger and requests attorneys' fees and damages in an unspecified amount. NBT and Salisbury believe these allegations are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. Salisbury Bancorp, Inc. is the holding company for Salisbury Bank & Trust. The Bank provides commercial lending, consumer lending, personal trust services, and safe deposit box facilities to customers in Connecticut. [BN] SKYFINEUSA LLC: Stokes Suit Remanded to Sacramento Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California remanded the case, ADAM STOKES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKYFINEUSA, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00065 WBS DB (E.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Sacramento. Stokes initiated the putative consumer class action against SkyFineUSA for violation of the Consumer Contract Awareness Act of 1990, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair business practices. The Defendant removed the action to this Court from the Sacramento County Superior Court based on diversity. A scheduling conference in the matter was set for April 10, 2023. Prior to the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit briefing addressing the amount in controversy jurisdictional requirement. The Plaintiff disputes that the requisite amount in controversy has been met. The Defendant argues that the amount in controversy is satisfied based on the value of the Plaintiff's claims and his anticipated attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant improperly charged him approximately $5,400 in fees. To satisfy the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement, the Defendant must therefore establish that the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees are likely to exceed $69,600. The complaint states that there are putative class members "in excess of thousands of individuals." For purposes of this inquiry, Judge Shubb conservatively assumes that there are 1,000 putative class members and allocates the attorneys' fees equally between them. Based on these assumptions, the Plaintiff's counsel would need to be awarded more than $69.6 million as a "reasonable" attorneys' fee award. The Defendant has provided no reason to believe that attorneys' fees in the action would reach such an absurdly high amount. Accordingly, Judge Shubb finds that the Defendant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold is satisfied and has therefore failed to overcome the presumption in favor of remand. Therefore, he remanded the case to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Sacramento. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybvdrhxd from Leagle.com. SMART ALABAMA: De la Rosa Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SMART Alabama, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Carlos Eduardo Herrera de la Rosa, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SMART Alabama, LLC, Total Employee Solution Support, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01519-SCJ (N.D. Ga., April 7, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for the Racketeering (RICO) Act. SMART Alabama, LLC -- https://www.smart-alabama.com/ -- manufactures automotive body parts. The Company offers dash comple, striker hood, floor comple, and related components.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Sutherland, Esq. Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. BEAL, SUTHERLAND, BERLIN & BROWN, LLC 945 East Paces Ferry Rd NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (404) 310-5840 Email: brian@beal.law rachel@beal.law - and - Christopher Baker Hall, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Pkwy SE, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (404) 876-8100 Fax: (404) 876-3477 Email: chall@hallandlampros.com - and - Daniel Werner, Esq. James E. Radford, Esq. RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC 315 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 1080 Decatur, GA 30030 Phone: (678) 271-0304 Fax: (678) 271-0314 Email: dan@decaturlegal.com james@decaturlegal.com SMARTRENT INC: Osei-Asibey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Lynnette Osei-Asibey and Shawon Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMARTRENT, INC.; SMARTRENT.COM, INC.; and SMARTRENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; Case No. 1:23-cv-01590-SDG (N.D. Ga., April 12, 2023), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to obtain full and complete relief for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated for overtime wages as required by the FLSA. The Defendant paid Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Field Installation Manager and/or Senior Field Installation Manager (collectively "FIM") on a salaried basis for all recorded hours worked. The Defendant did not permit the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated FIMs to record all time worked and did not maintain records of all time worked for the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated FIMs. In order to fully perform their job duties, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated FIMs regularly work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, but the Defendant does not compensate them at the overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as a Field Installation Manager and as a Senior Field Installation Manager. SmartRent transacts business in Georgia, including the sale and installation of smart home building hardware. SmartRent brands itself as a category leader in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tracey T. Barbaree, Esq. Beth A. Moeller, Esq. MOELLER BARBAREE LLP 1175 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 1850 Atlanta, GA 30361 Phone: (404) 748-9122 Email: tbarbaree@moellerbarbaree.com bmoeller@moellerbarbaree.com SN SERVICING: Gregg Sues Over False and Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvester Gregg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SN SERVICING CORPORATION a/k/a SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION; and SECURITY NATIONAL MASTER HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 707588/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., April 11, 2023), is brought seeking to vindicate the rights of New York consumers who--in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and New York General Business Law--were sent collection letters from the Defendants, in which they provided false, deceptive, and misleading statements regarding the status of purported debt obligations with respect to the lapse of the applicable statutes of limitations, compliance with debt collection procedures required by New York State law, and the collectability and status of consumer debts discharged under the Bankruptcy Code. Acting though SN Servicing Corporation, a self-identified "debt collector," the Defendants issued notices seeking to collect debts from Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers without assessing the applicable statute of limitations before issuance as required by New York law. Instead of determining the statute of limitations applicable to the debts it sought to collect and whether such statute of limitations has lapsed, Defendants placed the onus on consumers to determine whether their debt was time-barred, undermining the very time-barred debt warning that they conditionally provided to New York residents as follows: "If your debt is past the statute of limitations, you are hereby notified of the following important consumer information: Your creditor or debt collector believes that the legal time limit (statute of limitations) for suing you to collect this debt may have expired." Thus, New York consumers receiving debt collection notices from Defendants faced a near tautological quagmire: they were warned that the statute of limitations on their debts may have expired, but only if they, the consumers, first determined that their purported debts were beyond the applicable statute of limitations and the warning language that followed was therefore applicable to them. Compounding the false, deceptive, and misleading statements regarding time-barred debts, Defendants' correspondence also falsely stated that the "notice" was sent to consumers "in accordance with state regulations," but Defendants failed to maintain reasonable procedures for determining the statute of limitations applicable to the debts they were collecting and whether such statute of limitations had expired in violation of the NYCRR. The Defendants also issued false, deceptive, and misleading communications to consumers seeking to collect consumer debts that could not be collected because the consumers were in bankruptcy proceedings or the debts had been discharged by Bankruptcy Courts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a "consumer." SNSC "specializes in re-performing seriously delinquent loans, including HUD/FHA, USDA and VA loans for investors."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan S. Rothfarb, Esq. Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 3103 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 500-6114 Fax: (646) 612-7996 Email: erothfarb@consumerprotection.net dschlanger@consumerprotection.net ST. ANTHONY FOUNDATION: James Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD L. JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. ANTHONY FOUNDATION; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-23-605560 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 3, 2023) alleges that the Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' alleged deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a) failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (c) failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (d) failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs; (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failing to pay wages timely during employment; and (g) failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff and other California residents were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees throughout California. St. Anthony Foundation is a nonprofit social service organization in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com STEIN SAKS: Goldberg Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stein Saks, PLLC. The case is styled as Mark Goldberg, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Stein Saks, PLLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03089-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Stein Saks, PLLC -- https://steinsakslegal.com/ -- is a consumer protection law firm, dedicated to defending and protecting the rights of our clients.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SUNCOAST CREDIT: Solomon Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Darla Solomon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNCOAST CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2023-CA-001865 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00778. The Plaintiff's individual allegations include the following: Suncoast is a state-chartered credit union; An unauthorized party opened up a checking and savings account at Suncoast in Solomon's name using her personal identifying information ("PII"); That unauthorized parties capitalized on Suncoast's "unsound practices" by using Suncoast's "SunNet Online Banking" platform to open the accounts with stolen PII (the "Unauthorized Account Opening"); Suncoast's actions violated statutory guidelines of Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and standards of care imposed thereby; Plaintiff's brings single count negligence action against Suncoast for violation of FTC standards.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel A. Nicholas, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 4301 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Phone (813) 509-2691 Facsimile (813) 286-2900 Primary Email: daniel.nicholas@csklegal.com TEGUS INC: Hill Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEGUS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02314 (N.D. Ill., April 12, 2023), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff and other Associates and Analysts who worked for the Defendant. During one or more individual workweeks during the prior three years, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours per workweek but were not paid overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay. Pursuant to the Defendant's practice, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek even though the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as an Analyst by Tegus in Chicago, Illinois from April 2021 through May 2022. Tegus describes itself as a company that "provides fundamental data and information for key decision makers including investors, corporates, and consultancies."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com TIMELESS TILE: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timeless Tile NYC Inc. The case is styled as Ness-Lee Vachnine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Timeless Tile NYC Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03024 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Timeless Tile NYC -- https://timelesstilenyc.com/ -- sells porcelain & ceramic tiles, vanities, faucets, counter tops, & shower doors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com TMX FINANCE: Faces Eslinger Suit Over Customer's Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Patsie Eslinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TMX Finance LLC and TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00089-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 6, 2023) arises out of Defendant's alleged data breach and negligence. On or around March 30, 2023, TMX disclosed that it had suffered a data breach lasting from December 2022 to at least Feb. 14, 2023. The data breach impacted 4.8 million of its customers and resulted in the theft of highly sensitive information. Plaintiff Patsie Eslinger asserts that TMX Finance violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by failing to use reasonable measures to protect user's personally identifying information and sensitive data and by not complying with applicable industry standards. TMX is the parent company of a series of brands that offer loans to individuals with low income and low credit scores that are unable to obtain loans from banks and other traditional sources. Specifically, TMX contends that it provides access to credit for consumers who are underserved by traditional lenders including those who have nowhere else to turn when they suffer short-term financial setbacks like medical emergencies or home repairs. TMX's brands include TitleMax, TitleBucks, (both described as one of the nation's largest lending companies and InstaLoan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy C. Daugherty, Esq. MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 3535 Piedmont Road Building 14, Suite 230 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 320-9979 Facsimile: (404) 320-9978 E-mail: adaugherty@thefinleyfirm.com mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com njackson@thefinleyfirm.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. THE JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com TMX FINANCE: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information --------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Johnson, Jeremiah Gills, and Yolanda Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00096-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 12, 2023), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted TMX with sensitive personally identifiable information that was subsequently exposed in a data breach, which TMX publicly disclosed on March 30, 2023 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from TMX's failure to safeguard personally identifying information that was entrusted to it in its capacity as a loan service provider, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. TMX failed to secure the sensitive personal information of approximately 4.8 million customers. The Plaintiffs' claims arise from TMX's failure to safeguard personally identifying information ("PII") provided by and belonging to its customers, including (without limitation) their name, date of birth, passport number, driver's license number, government identification card number, tax identification number, Social Security number and/or financial account information, and other information such as phone number, address, and email address. The Defendant notified impacted customers, including Plaintiffs, of the Data Breach, stating that: "On February 13, 2023, we detected suspicious activity on our systems and promptly took steps to investigate the incident. As part of that investigation, global forensic cybersecurity experts were retained. Based on the investigation to date, the earliest known breach of TMX's systems started in early December 2022. On March 1, 2023, the investigation confirmed that information may have been acquired between February 3, 2023 – February 14, 2023." TMX acknowledged that PII from its computer system was accessed by unauthorized individuals. 4.8 million individuals were reportedly affected by the Data Breach. TMX failed to take precautions designed to keep that information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiffs' and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the PII TMX collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. TMX solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the PII, yet Defendant breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII has been exposed to criminals for misuse and their customers now face a risk of identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a notice of data breach letter--dated March 30, 2023--from TMX informing him that PII was compromised in the Data Breach. TMX is a financial services company that provides loans to consumers, primarily specializing in auto loans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark D. Johnson, Esq. GILBERT, HARRELL, SUMERFORD & MARTIN, P.C. 777 Gloucester Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 190 Brunswick, GA 31521 Phone: (912) 265-6700 Facsimile: (912) 264-0244 Email: mjohnson@ghsmlaw.com - and - John C. Herman, Esq. Candace N. Smith, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (404) 504-6500 Email: jherman@hennanjones.com csmith@hermanjones.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway 4th Floor, Suite #427 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com TOPDOG CANINE: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TopDog Canine Rehabilitation and Fitness, LLC. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TopDog Canine Rehabilitation and Fitness, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02998 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. TopDogHealth -- https://topdoghealth.com/ -- is dedicated to providing essential and trusted educational material and animal supplements to maintain the health and happiness of the dog.[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 TOUCHSTONE HOME: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touchstone Home Products, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Touchstone Home Products, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02986 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Touchstone Home Products, Inc. -- https://www.touchstonehomeproducts.com/ -- is an industry leader in Electric Fireplace and TV Lift products for the home since 2005.[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 TRAFILEA GROUP: Gomez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trafilea Group, Inc. The case is styled as Alejandra Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trafilea Group, Inc. doing business as: Shapermint, Case No. 1:23-cv-02292 (N.D. Ill., April 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Trafilea doing business as Shapermint -- https://shapermint.com/ -- offers the most supportive bras, shapewear, underwear, leggings and more for every size and shape at amazing prices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com TRAVELERS HOME: Ledford Files Suit in W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company. The case is styled as Kevin Ledford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-04079-WJE (W.D. Mo., April 7, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Insurance Contract. The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company -- https://www.travelers.com/ -- provides insurance services. The Company offers insurance services for auto, condo, renters, flood, and property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 231 S. Bemiston, Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 863-5700 Email: Roberts@butschroberts.com TRIDENT ACQUISITION: Weisheipl Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIM A. WEISHEIPL, Plaintiff v. MARAT ROSENBERG, VADIM KOMISSAROV, THOMAS GALLAGHER, GENNADII BUTKEVYCH, ILYA PONOMAREV, EDWARD S. VERONA, OLEKSII TYMOFIEV, MICHAEL WILSON, VK CONSULTING, INC., and CHARDAN CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC. Defendants, Case No. 2023-0395 (Del. Ch., April 3, 2023) is a verified class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former stockholders of Trident Acquisition Corp., against the Defendants asserting: (i) breach of fiduciary duty claims stemming from Trident's October 29, 2021 merger with AutoLotto, Inc.; (ii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against Chardan Capital Markets, LLC and (iii) unjust enrichment. The individual Defendants are sued in their capacities as members of the Trident's board of directors and in their capacities as Trident officers. Trident, now renamed Lottery.com, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that was formed as a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) by Defendants Komissarov and VK Consulting. Trident was taken public as a shell company by VK Consulting. According to the complaint, the Trident merger with AutoLotto failed to observe the most basic principle of Delaware corporate governance -- namely, that a corporation's governance structure should be designed to protect and promote the interests of public stockholders, not the financial interests of its insiders and controllers. Instead, the Trident Defendants, aided and abetted by each other and Chardan, granted themselves financial interests in the SPAC that diverged from those of public stockholders and allowed their financial interests to override their fiduciary duties and responsibilities as controlling stockholders, directors, and officers of a Delaware corporation by forcing through a value-destroying merger with AutoLotto and accomplishing the Merger on the basis of false and misleading disclosures. Those false and misleading disclosures induced Trident's public stockholders to invest in the Merger (which investment was equivalent to less than $1.00 per Trident share held) rather than redeem their shares for a pro rata portion of the funds held in trust -- nearly $11.00 per share at the time of the Merger, says the suit. In connection with the Merger negotiations, VK Consulting and certain Trident directors and officers elevated further their own personal financial interests in the Merger, over the interests of Trident's public stockholders, by negotiating for themselves even more incentive to get a deal done (and to inflate the stock price immediately post-Merger). The Board breached its duty of loyalty and candor to Trident's public stockholders, not only by failing to disclose how little net cash per share there was underlying Trident's shares, but also by withholding critical information from the Proxy concerning (1) AutoLotto's potentially criminal violations of state and federal laws and regulations; (2) impeding financial restatements; and (3) the fantastical nature of AutoLotto's projections in light of the foregoing, the suit asserts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 S. Justison Street 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com ktucker@gelaw.com - and - David Wissbroecker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 S. Justison Street 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 - and - Michael Klausner, Esq. 559 Nathon Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 Telephone: (650) 740-1194 E-mail: klausner@stanford.edu TWC PRODUCT: Court Denies Hart Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON HART, et al., v. TWC PRODUCT AND TECHNOLOGY LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03842-JST (N.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order denying motion for class certification. The N.D. Cal. Court has restricted public access to the order denying motion for class certification, because it contains or refers to material subject to sealing orders. Within seven days of the date of this order, the parties shall file either (1) a stipulated proposed redacted version of the order, redacting only those portions of the order containing or referring to material for which the Court has granted a motion to seal and which the parties still request be sealed, or (2) a stipulation that the parties agree that no redaction is necessary. If the parties propose redactions, they shall also email a PDF copy of the proposed redacted order, without any ECF headers, to jstpo@cand.uscourts.gov. The Court will review the parties' proposal and issue a redacted version of the order. If the parties stipulate that no redaction is necessary, or if they fail to file a timely stipulation, the Court will allow full access by the public to the unredacted order by removing the restrictions on ECF No. 198. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/408GvYk at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STAFFING: Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY GRACE MAGTOLES, AIRA C. TAN, ANA MYRENE ESPINOSA, and ANA MERVINE ESPINOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STAFFING REGISTRY, INC. d/b/a UNITED HOME CARE and BENJAMIN H. SANTOS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01850-KAM-PK (E.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' requested declaratory and injunctive relief as follows: The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment declaring the liquidated damages provision and non-compete clauses in all plaintiffs' contracts to be unenforceable and to enter an injunction permanently enjoining Defendants from attempting or threatening to enforce either. The Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion as to liability on the breach of contract claim is: a. granted on the following grounds: i. failure to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked; ii. failure to pay Plaintiffs the prevailing wage during Regal Heights Orientation. b. denied on the following grounds: i. deduction of time for meal periods or breaks that were not taken. ii. failure to give Plaintiffs 2,000 hours of work per year. c. granted as to piercing the corporate veil of Defendant United Staffing to hold Defendant Santos individually liable for breach of contract. d. Damages to Plaintiff Magtoles and the class caused by the Defendants' breach of contract are to be determined at a later date. The Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion as to Defendants' liability under the TVPA is granted. Damages to Plaintiff Magtoles and the class under the TVPA are to be determined at a later date. The Plaintiff Bhyng Espinosa's summary judgment motion for fraud and unjust enrichment claims against Defendants is denied. The class is also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, which are to be determined at a later date. No later than one week after the date of this Memorandum and Order, the parties shall contact Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo to schedule a settlement conference. Further, the parties are strongly encouraged to consent to Magistrate Judge Kuo's jurisdiction in this case. If the parties do not resolve or settle this case, they shall: (a) file a joint status report to the Court within two business days to advise of their failure to settle, and to schedule a status conference to address: how damages are to be determined; Defendants' counterclaim for breach of contract as to Plaintiffs Magtoles, Tan, and Ana Myrene Espinosa; and Plaintiff Bhyng Espinosa's claims for unjust enrichment and fraud, and (b) promptly meet and confer on these issues and present a joint plan to the Court. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the Republic of the Philippines who work as healthcare professionals in the New York area. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendants United Staffing Registry, Inc., and its sole owner, president, and chief executive officer, Benjamin H. Santos, for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). The complaint also asserts individual claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages as to specific aspects of Plaintiffs’ employment contracts. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KQAlHD at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Class Cert Hearing Set for May 31 ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMADO HARO and ROCHELLE ORTEGA, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00239-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order that: -- The Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's April 7, 2023 Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dr. Drogin shall be filed by: -- The Plaintiffs shall file any motions April 7, 2023 challenging Defendant's experts by: -- The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support April 14, 2023; of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by: -- The Defendant's Response to any motion April 28, 2023; filed by Plaintiffs to challenge Defendant's experts shall be due by: -- The Defendant's Reply Brief in support May 10, 2023 of the Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dr. Drogin and Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in support of any motions challenging Defendant's experts shall be filed by: -- The motion for class certification, as May 31, 2023 well the related motions to exclude expert evidence, shall be heard on: Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43qicHR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 340 South Lemon Avenue, No. 1228 Walnut, CA 91789 Telephone: (310) 928-1277 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com whogg@hftrialfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq. Laura L. Vaughn, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com jslowik@proskauer.com lvaughn@proskauer.com WALMART INC: Must Oppose Arrison Class Cert Bid by April 24 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathy Arrison, et al., v. Walmart Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00481-SMB (D. Ariz.), Hon. Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order granting the request and setting the briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' class certification mMotion as follows: Walmart's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' April 24, 2023 Class Certification Motion: Plaintiffs' Reply to Class Certification May 9, 2023 Motion: Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43oagqM at no extra charge.[CC] WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE: Pfister Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stephen Pfister, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation doing business as: WABTEC CORPORATION, Case No. GD-23-003518 was removed from the Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 12, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00609-WSS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation -- https://www.wabteccorp.com/ -- commonly known as Wabec, is an American company formed by the merger of the Westinghouse Air Brake Company and MotivePower Industries Corporation in 1999. It is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY 1650 Market St., 52nd Flr One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3895 Email: phoward@smbb.com - and - Raina C Borrelli TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com The Defendants are represented by: Rebekah B. Kcehowski, Esq. JONES DAY 500 Grant Street One Mellon Center, Suite 4500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 391-3939 Email: rbkcehowski@jonesday.com WYNDHAM VACATION: Faces Huskey Suit Over Timeshare Loans -------------------------------------------------------- LOGAN HUSKEY, HEATHER HUSKEY, DANIEL FOLDEN and NICOLE FOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC. AND TRAVEL + LEISURE CO. F/K/A WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00601 (M.D. Fla., March 31, 2023) seeks to void timeshare loans that violate the Military Lending Act. Accordingly, Wyndham targets military consumers by offering them discounts and "free tickets" to entertainment venues, gift cards, and free vacations. Wyndham sells vacations, or more accurately, the potential to book a future vacation through a complex system of vacation club points that are tied to Wyndham owned timeshare properties. As part of the transaction, Wyndham traps service members into loans that can never be repaid due to never ending maintenance fees. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to provide any of the required MLA disclosures to MLA covered borrowers and it unlawfully requires mandatory binding arbitration, says the suit. Wyndham are headquartered in Florida at all times relevant to this Complaint, and engaged in much of the actions complained of herein in Florida. It is a creditor for timeshare interests throughout the US. Wyndham’s entire marketing scheme is centered on the selling of timeshare vacation points. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. Erika R. Willis, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave. Ste. 201H, #105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352-504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com mpeterson@vandwlaw.com ewillis@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com ZOLL MEDICAL: McMahon Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoll Medical Corporation. The case is styled as Patricia McMahon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zoll Medical Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10784-JGD (D. Mass., April 12, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Federal Trade Commission Act. Zoll Medical Corporation -- https://www.zoll.com/ -- develops and markets medical devices and software solutions. The Company offers products that are used by health care professionals to provide pacing and defibrillation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Two Seaport Lane, 6th Flr. Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 439-3939 Fax: (617) 439-0134 Email: ehaber@shulaw.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Reports $162.4MM Loss on Divestitures ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Company, In 2022, has recognized a loss on the divestiture of asbestos-related assets and liabilities of $162.4 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Total Corporate expense increased by $187.0 million, or 191.4%, in 2022, primarily related to the loss on divestiture of asbestos related assets and liabilities, and higher transaction related expenses of $33.9 million, or 34.7%, partially offset by slightly lower compensation and benefit costs. "On August 12, 2022, Crane Holdings, Co., Crane Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crane Holdings, Co., and Redco Corporation ("Redco"), then a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crane Company that held asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets, entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Redco Purchase Agreement") with Spruce Lake Liability Management Holdco LLC ("Redco Buyer"), an unrelated third party and long-term liability management company specializing in the acquisition and management of legacy corporate liabilities whereby Crane Company transferred to Redco Buyer all of the issued and outstanding shares of Redco (the "Redco Sale"). In connection with the Redco Sale, Crane Holdings, Co., on behalf of Crane Company, contributed approximately $550 million in cash to Redco, which was funded by a combination of short-term borrowings and cash on hand. As a result of the Redco Sale, all asbestos obligations and liabilities, related insurance assets and associated deferred tax assets have been removed from Crane Company's combined balance sheets effective August 12, 2022. A loss on the divestiture of asbestos-related assets and liabilities of $162.4 million was recognized in the supplemental combined statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2022." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3UJMJMY ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3KJoQjZ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Defends of PI Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Williams Industrial Services Group Inc., has assumed defense of the matter subject to a reservation of rights and objection to the claim for indemnification, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The acquiror of certain assets from a former operating unit of the Company has been named as a defendant in an asbestos personal injury lawsuit and has submitted a claim for indemnification and tendered defense of the matter to the Company. "Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, produced, or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the injury underlying this action. The Company does not expect that this claim will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Moreover, during 2012, the Company secured insurance coverage that will help to reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of its former operating unit relating to these claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3MO2JLV ********* 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 ***