/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230425.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 25, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 83
Headlines
ALASKA: Resident Sues Over Untimely Provision of Cash Assistance
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit Over Soliris Sales
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Motion to Lift Status Quo Order
ARKANSAS: Lawyers Sue Over Right to Carry Guns in Courthouses
ASSURANCE IQ: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
ATI HOLDINGS: Court Narrows RICO Act Claims in Morsberger Suit
AUDIBLE INC: Bid to Seal Docs Temporarily OK'd in Golden Suit
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Williams Suit Remanded to Cal. Super Ct.
BANK OF AMERICA: Subramanian Withdrawn as Counsel in NBFPBF Suit
BARCLAYS BANK: Subramanian Withdrawn as Counsel in Antitrust Suit
BARCLAYS BANK: Subramanian Withdrawn as Counsel in Darby Suit
BITESQUAD.COM LLC: Continues to Defend Jenson Class Suit
BRAEMAR HOTELS & RESORTS: Labor Suits in California Courts Ongoing
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Stiner's Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
CALIFORNIA STATE: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Fisk Suit
CARLOTZ INC: Class Action Arising From SPAC Merger Dismissed
CHICAGO, IL: Drivers Class Suit Cited for Cellphone Use Certified
CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU: More Time to File Class Cert Briefing Sought
CLASSY CLOSETS: May 23 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
CORNERSTONE TRADING: Residents Sue Over Massive Industrial Fire
CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE: Santiago Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Final Nod of Class Action Settlement Sought
DJGN LLC: Benjamin Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
DL Y LLC: Mendoza Sues to Recover Unpaid Earned Overtime Wages
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Grants LACERA's Bid for Class Certification
FORD MOTOR: Averts F-150, Ranger Fuel Economy Class Action
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Faces Quinones Shareholder Suit in MA Court
FTX TRADING: Ex-NBA O'Neal Served With Class Suit Documents
FUBOTV INC: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
GENIUS BRANDS: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Securities Suit
HORIZON BANCORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 19
HORIZON BANCORP: Sued Over Deficient Internal Accounting Controls
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Suit Over Unlicensed Cannabis Growing Heard
HYDRO-QUEBEC: May Face Class Suit Over Power Outages in Montreal
IKEA NORTH: TikTok influencer Urges to Claim Class Suit Settlement
INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 1
INTRUSION INC: Class Action Settlement, Allocation Plan Approved
JACK IN THE BOX: Court Reduces WBF Class Penalty Wages by $1.9K
JACKSON HEWITT: Suit Seeks Certification of Plaintiff Class
JAMES KOUTOULAS: M.D. Florida Narrows De Ford's Recovery Claims
KANSAS, MO: Faces Suit Over Tenants' Abysmal Living Conditions
KBK NO. 11: Agrees to Settle Defective Windows Suit for $6-Mil.
KHOSROW SADEGHIAN: Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd
LAMOILLE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patients' Unprotected Info
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Seeks to Move Class Cert Response Date to May 5
LATAM AIRLINES: Faces Consumer Suit in Chilean Court
LAURIE, MO: Whitworth Sues Over Alleged Civil Rights' Violations
LENOVO INC: Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval in Gisairo Suit
LIPOCINE INC: Faces Abady Shareholder Suit in Utah Court
LUTHER BURBANK CORP: Faces O'dell Class Suit in California
LUTHER BURBANK CORP: Faces Siegel Class Suit in California
LUTHER BURBANK CORP: Faces Wang Class Suit in California
MATERION BRUSH: Class Settlement in Lucyk Gets Initial Nod
MDL 3071: Court Transfers 21 Lawsuits to M.D. Tenn.
MDL 3072: Court Consolidates 21 Lawsuits to E.D. Va.
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
META PLATFORMS: Submission of Settlement Claim Form Until August 25
METROPOLITAN BANK: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
MINNESOTA: Chairse Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
MOUNT NITTANY: Faces Class Action Over Patients' Unprotected Info
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert Expert Reports Due July 31
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: $3.8M Class Deal in Mostajo Suit Gets Final OK
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Extends Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid
NEW YORK: Class Cert. Denied in Employment Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by April 28
OHIO STATE: Dehen Bid for Recusal Tossed
OLIVERI & ASSOCIATES: Maryland Homeowner Class Wins Certification
ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Farhar Securities Class Suit
OUTSOURCE UTILITY: Plagakis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PACKAGING CORP: W.D. Michigan Narrows Claims in Miller ERISA Suit
PLUG POWER: Melton Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR: Macias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PRIME HYDRATION: May Face Class Action of PFAS in Sport Drinks
PROSPECT AIRPORT: Cook Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
QUONTIC BANK: GASIC Case Remains Stayed
R&L CARRIERS: Court Junks Johnson Class Status Bid
RAINBOW CLEANING: Farias Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RECKITT BENCKISER: 11th Cir. Vacates $8MM Class Action Settlement
ROUNDABOUT THEATRE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RUBBER STAMPS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RYVYL INC: Continues to Defend Cullen Class Suit in California
SAFEWAY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Buy One, Get One Promotions
SAN ANTONIO, TX: Faces Class Suit Over Workplace Sexual Harassment
SINGTEL OPTUS: Faces Class Action Over September 2022 Data Breach
SKILLZ INC: Jedrzejczyk Appellate Brief Expected in May
SKILLZ INC: Shultz Appellate Brief Expected in May
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: SCOTUS Weighs Direct Listing in Securities Suit
SOL DE JANEIRO: Raslavich Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suits
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing Still Not Set in Luo Class Suit
SPHERE 3D: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
SPRINGPOINT SENIOR: Supreme Court to Review Ruling in Fraud Suit
SUN PRODUCTS: Eidelman Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
SUTTER VALLEY: Court Junks Ward Bid for Class Certification
SYNCHRONY BANK: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due August 30 in Williams
TALKSPACE INC: Faces Shareholder Suits in New York Court
TALKSPACE INC: Faces Valdez Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
TELEPERFORMANCE SE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 20
TRINSEO PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 20
TURNING POINT: Parties in Viera Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
UNITED PARCEL: Averts Class Action Over Alleged Systemic Bias
UNITED STATES: CHD Sues Over Collusion to Suppress Free Speech
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Civil Asset Forfeiture
VIRGIN ORBIT: Faces WARN Act-Related Class Suit in Delaware
VISION SOLAR: Faces Suit Over Unaffordable Loans for Solar Panels
VIXEN MEDIA: Retired Performer Files Labor Class Action in Calif.
YORK COUNTY, PA: Inmates to Appeal Class Certification Denial
[*] U.S. Real Estate Industry Contends With Antitrust Class Action
*********
ALASKA: Resident Sues Over Untimely Provision of Cash Assistance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Stremple, writing for Alaska Beacon, reports that an
Anchorage resident filed a class action lawsuit this week seeking
to force the state Division of Public Assistance to get cash
assistance to vulnerable Alaskans in a timely manner.
Natilia Edwards filed her complaint with the Northern Justice
Project, a civil rights firm.
This class action lawsuit comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed
against the Department of Health earlier this year; 10 Alaskans
sued the state because the division's backlog caused an unlawfully
long wait for food stamps.
The backlog in the Division of Public Assistance has most notably
kept thousands of Alaskans waiting on food stamps and Medicaid, but
it is affecting the other programs the division manages as well.
Adult Public Assistance is a cash benefit for elderly, blind and
disabled Alaskans that is intended to help them live
independently.
"These are our most vulnerable neighbors," said Northern Justice
Project attorney Nick Feronti. "The blind, the disabled, and the
elderly aren't getting access to help they need."
The state is legally required to process Adult Public Assistance
applications in 30 days. Feronti said data shows that it's taking
more than twice that long. He said about 8,500 people have applied
for cash assistance this fiscal year; the state has completed about
a third of the applications on time.
"We aren't asking for money. The state can't make it up to them.
People are literally going without food or gas money," said
Feronti. "We want a judge to order the state to drop everything and
fix this."
Department of Health spokesperson Shirley Young said in an email
that the division has been making progress, but it isn't processing
applications within a desirable timeframe. She said the department
has taken major steps to address the delays in all of its programs.
It's in the process of hiring and training 30 new application
processing employees and has contracted workers to answer phone
calls.
The state declined to comment on the litigation itself:
"The State of Alaska has recently become aware of this complaint
and is waiting to be served with the court documents. The
Department of Law cannot comment on the substance of the lawsuit
until it is received," wrote Communications Director Patty
Sullivan.
This story originally appeared in the Alaska Beacon and is
republished here with permission.
Alaska Beacon
Alaska Beacon is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus
supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public
charity. Alaska Beacon maintains editorial independence. Contact
Editor Andrew Kitchenman for questions: info@alaskabeacon.com.
Follow Alaska Beacon on Facebook and Twitter. [GN]
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit Over Soliris Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski at Bloomberg News reports that Alexion
Pharmaceuticals Inc. must face a securities class action related to
the sales of its lone commercial drug and the suit will be
championed by an investment company and retirement plan, a federal
court said.
Alexion specializes in drugs used to treat illnesses that affect
less than 200,000 people. Its drug, Soliris, is used to reduce
symptoms of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, a blood disease,
and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, a kidney disease.
The suit alleged that, between January 2014 and May 2017, Alexion's
growth of the Soliris market in other countries was obtained
through illegal and unethical sales practices. It also alleged that
once the practices were disclosed, Alexion's share price fell by
over 30%.
Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH and the Public
Employee Retirement System of Idaho sought to certify a class of
all Alexion stock purchasers between Jan. 20, 2014, and May 26,
2017, and to be named class representatives. Judge Alvin W.
Thompson of the US District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted the requests.
There were more than 197.8 million Alexion shares outstanding
during the proposed class period, and the alleged damages arose out
of the same misstatements and omissions in Alexion's filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the court said.
PERSI and Erste will also make adequate class representatives, the
court said, rejecting Alexion's contention that they would be
subject to unique defenses that would threaten the focus on the
litigation as a whole.
For example, Alexion alleged that three Erste funds bought and sold
Alexion stock after Alexion had taken corrective measures and after
Erst concluded that Alexion had committed securities fraud. Alexion
also said that PERSI both purchased and sold its stock during the
class period.
But the court said the allegation won't become a focus of the case,
because Alexion allegedly only made partial disclosures during the
class period and continued to mislead investors. Also, the alleged
purchases weren't significantly large and the allegation doesn't go
to the heart of the case, the court said.
Alexion also challenged Erste's standing because the funds it
managed, not Erste, were the ones that suffered any alleged injury.
But the court said that investment companies and managers have
exclusive authority to sue on behalf of their funds.
Nor did Alexion show that any discovery disputes with Erste or
PERSI's alleged lack of knowledge of the suit will affect their
ability to protect the interests of the class, the court said.
Erste and PERSI also showed that questions of law and fact that
apply to the class predominate over any of their individual matters
and that a class action is the most efficient way to adjudicate the
controversy, the court said.
Class certification was granted and Erste and PERSI's lawyers were
appointed class counsel. Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC
represented Erste and PERSI.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and Wiggin & Dana LLP
represented Alexion.
The case is Bos. Ret. Sys. v. Alexion Pharms., Inc., 2023 BL
125035, D. Conn., No. 3:16-cv-2127 (AWT), 4/13/23.
To contact the reporter on this story: Bernie Pazanowski in
Washington at bpazanowski@boombergindustry.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Martina Stewart
at mstewart@bloombergindustry.com; Rob Tricchinelli at
rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com [GN]
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Motion to Lift Status Quo Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
lexology.com reports that common stockholders filed two class
action lawsuits against AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (AMC) and
its board of directors (the "Board"). The lawsuits asserted
fiduciary duty and statutory claims under section 242(b) of the
Delaware General Corporation Law. The lawsuits were later
consolidated. The stockholders challenge proposed amendments to the
Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of AMC,
which was proposed in connection with a special meeting of the AMC
stockholders that was scheduled to be held on March 14, 2023.
The Plaintiffs alleged the Board sought to "neutralize and
circumvent" the voting rights of the common stockholders by: (i)
issuing the company's outstanding AMC Preferred Equity Units
("APE"); (ii) entering into a Deposit Agreement to "supercharge the
voting power of the Preferred Stock relative to the Class A common
stock" via the proportional voting provision; (iii) selling
hundreds of millions of APEs to new investors; (iv) buying votes
for the Proposals through AMC's deal with Antara; and (v)
"structur[ing] the Proposals to include a conversion of APEs into
Class A shares on a one-for-one basis, which will result in a
significant transfer of value from the Class A stockholders to the
APE holders, to financially incentivize APE holders to vote for the
Proposals."
Shortly after the filing and consolidation of the lawsuits, the
parties "stipulated to expedited proceedings and a status quo order
by which the defendants agreed not to amend . . . [AMC's]
certificate of incorporation as a result of any vote at the
Company's March 14 special meeting, pending the Court's ruling on
the plaintiffs' forthcoming preliminary injunction motion", which
was scheduled to be heard on April 27.
On April 3, AMC announced that the parties reached a proposed
settlement, where the parties agreed that if the Court approves
lifting the status quo order, AMC would (i) "increase the
authorized number of shares of Common Stock," (ii) "convert the
Company's outstanding . . . [APEs] into shares of Common Stock,"
and (iii) "effect a 1-to-10 reverse split of AMC equity." AMC
pre-conversion common stockholders would receive "one additional
share of Common Stock for every seven-and-one-half (7.5) shares of
Common Stock held as of the issuance." The issue for the Court was
that the unopposed motion to lift the status quo order contemplated
performance of the settlement before Court could conduct a
settlement hearing, including stockholders being notified of the
settlement and having the opportunity to object.
In denying the motion to lift the status quo order, the Court held
that the party seeking a modification or vacatur of a status quo
order bears the burden to show good cause why the order should be
modified or vacated, and the decision is ultimately left to the
discretion of the Court. The Court further noted how it has
cautioned parties against performing settlement obligations, even
partially, prior to a class action settlement hearing, because
doing so prevents the Court from meeting its obligation to oversee
class action settlements. The Court ultimately found that there was
no good cause to lift the status quo order in this case.
This case is also noteworthy given the numerous objections received
by the Court from AMC stockholders, notwithstanding that notice of
the settlement has not even been formally provided and a settlement
hearing has not been scheduled. [GN]
ARKANSAS: Lawyers Sue Over Right to Carry Guns in Courthouses
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Lynch, writing for Arkansas Democrat Gazette, reports that
lawyers who have been testing the limits of Arkansas gun-carrying
laws have filed a new suit to be able to bring their weapons into
the Pulaski County courthouse.
The plaintiffs Ben Motal and law school professor Robert Steinbuch
are also seeking class-action status on behalf of any lawyer, with
a few restrictions, who had cases in Pulaski County Circuit Court
over the past five years.
An October lawsuit on the issue similarly seeking class-action
status was dismissed last month by Circuit Judge Chip Welch who
found, among other things, that the law Steinbuch and plaintiffs
Chris Corbitt and Motal were relying on to be unconstitutional
because the Legislature cannot make laws that conflict with the
courts' constitutional authority, established under Amendment 80,
to regulate court procedures.
Only the Arkansas Supreme Court has the power to determine who can
bring guns into court and the justices have not done so or even
sought a study into whether guns should be allowed in court, Welch
stated. His ruling, which allowed the suit to be refiled, is being
appealed.
The day following Welch's decision, Motal and Steinbuch were
refused entry by courthouse security when they asked if they could
bring their firearms with them into the building, giving them
grounds to sue again, according to the new suit now before Circuit
Judge Herb Wright.
The attorneys say a provision of Act 1087 of 2017, codified as
Arkansas 5-73-122, gives Arkansas lawyers the right to carry guns
into the state's courthouses and courtrooms as "officers of the
court" were added to the law addressing carrying firearms in public
buildings. Attorneys are recognized as such officers in the
Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, while the U.S.
Supreme Court has recognized attorneys in such a manner since
1978.
The original suit named the circuit court, Sheriff Eric Higgins and
County Judge Barry Hyde as defendants and the new litigation
includes them, as well as Circuit Clerk Terri Hollingsworth.
An Arkansas attorney since 2017, Motal came to public attention in
May 2020 when he won a significant open-records victory over the
city of Little Rock before the state Court of Appeals.
The court sided with Motal who argued that the Arkansas Freedom of
Information Act provision that allows citizens to copy records
meant that citizens should be allowed to use their cell phones to
take pictures of eligible documents. Motal had sued Little Rock
after police refused to let him photograph an accident report
documenting how he had been struck by a hit-and-run driver, stating
that he had to pay $10 for a copy.
City lawyers disputed that the definition of copying in the law did
not extend to taking pictures. The Arkansas Supreme Court
subsequently rejected the city's effort to have the high court hear
the case. [GN]
ASSURANCE IQ: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. Assurance IQ LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00823 (W.D. Wash., June 17, 2021), Hon. Judge Tana
Lin entered an order granting the Parties request additional time
to respond to the Court's previous order for proposed deadlines for
discovery and class certification.
-- The Parties are ordered to submit a joint status report within
seven days of the Plaintiffs' filing of the amended
complaint.
-- The report shall contain proposed deadlines for any motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, for the completion of fact and
expert discovery, and for Plaintiffs to file a motion for
class
certification.
-- The Parties are reminded that requests of the Court should be
filed as a motion.
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
Assurance provides software solutions.[CC]
ATI HOLDINGS: Court Narrows RICO Act Claims in Morsberger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois grants in part and denies in part the motion
to dismiss filed by the Defendants in the case is captioned as
STANLEY MORSBERGER and CLEMENTINE ELUH, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATI HOLDINGS, LLC,
ATHLETIC & THERAPUTIC INSTITUTE OF NAPERVILLE, LLC d/b/a ATI
Physical Therapy, ATI PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., RAY WAHL, DOES 1-10,
and ROES 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 22 C 1181 (N.D. Ill.).
Stanley Morsberger and Clementine Eluh allege in this putative
class action that ATI Holdings LLC, Athletic & Therapeutic
Institute of Naperville LLC, ATI Physical Therapy Inc., Ray Wahl,
John Does 1-10, and Jane Roes 1-40 engaged in unlawful billing
practices in a manner that violated the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and
state common law.
The Defendants move under the forum non conveniens doctrine to
dismiss the suit in favor of arbitration, under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim, and under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure to strike the complaint's class allegations.
The Court denies the forum non conveniens motion. The Court finds
that "both Illinois law and Maryland law require a party invoking
equitable estoppel, including in the arbitration context, to
demonstrate detrimental reliance. Without the arbitration clause's
assurances, ATI may have negotiated different contract terms before
accepting patients for treatment. But that argument misses the mark
because the Defendants submit that they relied on a representation
made by Aetna, not by Morsberger -- the party against whom they
seek to estop. And without detrimental reliance, the Defendants
cannot use equitable estoppel to require Morsberger to arbitrate
his claims."
The Court finds that "even if the Defendants could permissibly bill
the settlement proceeds under the Lien Act, the Defendants have not
addressed Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants
misrepresenting their billing practices, which is the gravamen of
the Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, dismissal on this ground is
not warranted." At this stage of the litigation, the Court finds it
reasonable to infer that the Plaintiffs paid the Defendants more
from their respective settlements than they had allocated during
the settlement process to cover physical therapy expenses.
Likewise, the Defendants' argument -- that Morsberger's physician
referred him to ATI -- does not undercut Morsberger's allegations
that he received and signed ATI's Notice of Financial
Responsibility and would not have sought treatment from ATI had
Defendants adequately disclosed their billing practices. Hence, the
Court cannot say that the Plaintiffs' complaint unambiguously
establishes all the elements of a voluntary payment defense -- the
complaint's allegations do not establish that there was no
impediment to Plaintiffs investigating and discovering key facts on
which they claim to have been misled -- including the fact that
they were charged the rack-rate cost of services instead of the
insurance-negotiated rates Defendants were contractually obligated
to charge.
Moreover, the Court agrees with the Defendants' argument that the
Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead the existence of a cognizable
RICO enterprise. The Plaintiffs attempt to allege an
association-in-fact enterprise dubbed "ATI Physical Therapy." The
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants (ATI Physical Therapy, Inc., the
Subsidiary Defendants, and the Management Defendants) "associated
together under the 'ATI Physical Therapy' umbrella to advertise,
market, and otherwise conduct business as one entity." But this was
insufficient to demonstrate an enterprise.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs reside in and are citizens of
Maryland. Plaintiff Morsberger was injured in Maryland (the
Complaint does not specify where Plaintiff Eluh was injured) and
both Plaintiffs were treated in Maryland. The Plaintiffs do not
allege that ATI executed its contracts in Illinois or that those
contracts contained forum-selection or choice-of-law clauses
favoring Illinois. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs fail to distinguish
their circumstances from cases in which the plaintiff's claims were
not cognizable under the ICFA. The Court, therefore, has dismissed
the Plaintiffs' ICFA claim because the disputed transactions did
not occur primarily and substantially in Illinois.
The Plaintiffs also allege violations of the MCPA. The Plaintiffs
that their consumer fraud claims are premised not on contracts but
on ATI's representations, advertisements, and communications to
patients. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs on this point -- their
MCPA claim survives to the extent that it does not rely on alleged
contractual breaches.
Finally, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' equitable claims fail
as presently pleaded. The Court explains that "While a plaintiff
may plead breach of contract in one count and unjust enrichment and
promissory estoppel in others, it may not include allegations of an
express contract which governs the relationship of the parties, in
the counts for unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel."
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed classes are not
defined by success on the merits. The Court points out that if the
Defendants' fail-safe argument had merit, it will not require
striking the Plaintiffs' class allegations, but rather would
warrant refining the class definition at the class certification
stage.
A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March
30, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/4r8vwfdt from
Leagle.com.
AUDIBLE INC: Bid to Seal Docs Temporarily OK'd in Golden Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Golden Unicorn
Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Audible, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an
order as follows:
-- The motion to seal is granted temporarily.
-- The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue
sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion.
Pursuant to the parties' agreed‐upon procedure, Audible
respectfully seeks leave to file certain exhibits from its
Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motions to Exclude Opinions of John
Rodzvilla and Juli Saitz under seal or in redacted form. All
redactions that Audible seeks in this letter motion have previously
been requested in prior motions to seal. Further, pursuant to the
parties' procedure, Audible seeks to preliminary seal its
Opposition and all exhibits pending the Plaintiffs' review and
potential motion to seal or redact.
As discussed in Audible's letter‐motion to seal materials from
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, although there is a
presumption of public access, a court must balance "countervailing
factors, " including privacy interests as well as confidential and
proprietary business information.
Here, Audible seeks to file under seal or redact two types of
confidential information: (1) documents or information that contain
sensitive business information, or information that could cause
competitive harm; and (2) prior expert work for non‐parties that
does not bear on Audible's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motions to
Exclude Opinions of John Rodzvilla and Juli Saitz.
Audible is a producer and provider of original spoken-word
entertainment.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43Dpzfh at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D. Buckley, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
1191 Second Avenue, 10th floor
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 489-4510
E-mail: BBuckley@fenwick.com
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Williams Suit Remanded to Cal. Super Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA WILLIAMS, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-03933-FLA-PLA (C.D. Cal.),
Hon. Judge FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA entered an order granting
stipulation to remand removed action.
1. Central District of California Case No. 2:22-cv-03933-FLA
(PLAx) is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles;
2. All pre-trial and trial deadlines and dates are vacated,
including the responsive pleading deadline and class
certification deadlines; and
3. The Parties agree to bear their own attorneys' fees and
costs
with respect to the removal and subsequent remand of the
action.
On March 16, 2023, the Plaintiff Williams and Defendant AvalonBay
filed a stipulation to remand removed action.
AvalonBay is a real estate investment trust (a "REIT") focused on
developing, redeveloping, acquiring and managing apartment.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MK3ndl at no extra charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Subramanian Withdrawn as Counsel in NBFPBF Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of New Britain
Firefighters' and Police Benefit Fund v. Bank of America
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01540-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), Hon.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order granting motion to
withdraw as counsel Arun Subramanian.
Pursuant to Rule 1.4 of the Local Rules of the Southern District of
New York, Arun Subramanian is permitted to withdraw as counsel of
record for the OTC plaintiffs Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
City of New Britain, Vistra Energy Corp., Yale University, and
Jennie Stuart Medical Center, Inc.
The Clerk shall amend the docket and other court records to reflect
the withdrawal of Arun Subramanian as counsel of record for OTC
Plaintiffs.
Arun Subramanian shall be removed from all electronic and other
service lists in the Court’s records for this matter.
The New Britain in consolidated in RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ojTWaF at no extra charge.[CC]
BARCLAYS BANK: Subramanian Withdrawn as Counsel in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Federal National Mortgage
Association v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al. (IN RE LIBOR-BASED
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
1:15-cv-04810-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald
entered an order granting motion to withdraw as counsel Arun
Subramanian.
Pursuant to Rule 1.4 of the Local Rules of the Southern District of
New York, Arun Subramanian is permitted to withdraw as counsel of
record for the OTC plaintiffs Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
City of New Britain, Vistra Energy Corp., Yale University, and
Jennie Stuart Medical Center, Inc.
The Clerk shall amend the docket and other court records to reflect
the withdrawal of Arun Subramanian as counsel of record for OTC
Plaintiffs.
Arun Subramanian shall be removed from all electronic and other
service lists in the Court’s records for this matter.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A22g11 at no extra charge.[CC]
BARCLAYS BANK: Subramanian Withdrawn as Counsel in Darby Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Darby Financial Products
et al v. Barclays Bank PLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04810-NRB
(S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order
granting motion to withdraw as counsel.
Pursuant to Rule 1.4 of the Local Rules of the Southern District of
New York, Arun Subramanian is permitted to withdraw as counsel of
record for the OTC plaintiffs Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
City of New Britain, Vistra Energy Corp., Yale University, and
Jennie Stuart Medical Center, Inc.
The Clerk shall amend the docket and other court records to reflect
the withdrawal of Arun Subramanian as counsel of record for OTC
Plaintiffs.
Arun Subramanian shall be removed from all electronic and other
service lists in the Court’s records for this matter.
The Darby Suit in consolidated in RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41ebHXd at no extra charge.[CC]
BITESQUAD.COM LLC: Continues to Defend Jenson Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bitesquad.com LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 17, 2023, that the Company will
continue to defend itself from the Jenson class suit in Minnesota
state court.
In November 2022, the Company was named as a defendant in Jenson et
al. v. Bitesquad.com, LLC, No. 22-cv-03044 (NEB), filed in
Minnesota state court. The plaintiffs, three customers purporting
to represent a class, allege that the Company's advertising is
false and misleading in that the Company's "free delivery"
promotions violate the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Practices Act
and the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act as a result of
the Company charging "other fees" on such orders that plaintiffs
assert constitute a "delivery charge." The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Based on the existence of an arbitration provision in the BiteSquad
website "terms and conditions" section, the Company then moved to
compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The parties
briefed and presented arguments on this motion to the court on
March 8, 2023 and are waiting on the court's ruling.
The Company believes that this lawsuit lacks merit and that it has
strong defenses to all claims alleged. The Company continues to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Bitesquad.com, LLC is a restaurant delivery service doing business
in Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Mississippi, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.[BN]
BRAEMAR HOTELS & RESORTS: Labor Suits in California Courts Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2023, that in December 20,
2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one of the company's
hotel management companies in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging
violations of certain California employment laws, which class
action affects two hotels owned by subsidiaries of the company.
The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of the
company's manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a
result of the company's manager's previous written policy requiring
its employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a
derivative class of non-exempt former employees of the company's
manager who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon
separation from employment.
Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of
the class; however, the total number of employees in the class has
not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery.
Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. Is a real estate investment trust
company based in Texas.
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Stiner's Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed in the case
captioned as STACIA STINER, et al., Plaintiffs v. BROOKDALE SENIOR
LIVING, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D.
Cal.).
The case is a putative class action lawsuit in which the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. and
Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., operate their facilities
in California in a manner that violates federal and state
disability laws.
According to the Plaintiffs, they chose to stay in a Brookdale
facility because they believed Brookdale's promises to provide the
care and assistance that would allow them to age with dignity. But
they allege that they have instead encountered a system of
understaffed facilities that fails to consistently provide a basic
level of care. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Brookdale's
facilities are not accessible by people with disabilities, and that
its policies regarding transportation, emergency evacuation, and
staffing prevent these residents from fully accessing and enjoying
the Facilities. They also allege that Brookdale conceals material
facts about and misrepresents the quality of care at the
Facilities, in violation of California's consumer protection
statutes.
The Court finds each of the classes has enough proposed members to
satisfy Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which
requires that the putative class be "so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable." Likewise, the record contains no
evidence that the Named Plaintiffs have a conflict of interest as
to any other putative class member. Further, the Named Plaintiffs'
claims are co-extensive with those of the putative class members,
and they have each submitted declarations attesting to their
willingness to vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the
class.
The Court, therefore, appoints Plaintiffs Stacia Stiner; Loresia
Vallette, representative of the Lawrence Quinlan Estate; Heather
Fisher, guardian ad litem for Ralph Schmidt; Patricia Lindstrom, as
successor in interest to the Estate of Arthur Lindstrom; Michele
Lytle, Trustee of the Boris Family Revocable Trust; Bernie
Jestrabek-Hart; Jeanette Algarme; and Ralph Carlson, Trustee of the
Beverly E. Carlson and Helen V. Carlson Joint Trust, as class
representatives. In addition, the Court appoints the law firms of
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld LLP, Stebner & Associates, and Marks Balette Giessel &
Young, P.L.L.C. as class counsel in this case.
The Court declines to certify the Mobilities and Vision Impaired
Class to pursue the Access Barrier Claims. The Court finds that the
Plaintiffs have not identified the kind of evidence of common
architecture, barriers to access, or policies that can make the
proposed question of whether Brookdale's new or altered facilities
comply with federal and California disability laws capable of
resolution by classwide proof. Proving that each of Brookdale's
facilities violated the Americans with Disabilities Act or the
California Building Code would instead require dozens of
complicated trials within a trial.
Next, the Court declines to certify the Wheelchair and Scooter
Users Subclass under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure to pursue the Transportation Claims. Here, the Court
cannot determine even roughly how many class members were injured
based on common proof. Plaintiffs have provided the Fleet Safety
Policy as evidence of Brookdale's classwide liability. But the
policy is not enough to establish liability as to individual class
members, because they have not suffered an injury unless the policy
affected their full and equal enjoyment of the facility, a highly
individualized inquiry.
The Court further finds that the commonality requirement is not met
as to the Emergency Evacuation Claims and thus declines to certify
a class as to those claims. The Emergency Evacuation Claims fail at
the threshold because the Plaintiffs have not shown that they can
be resolved based on a common body of evidence. Since the putative
class members are subject to dozens of different local policies and
practices, the factfinder could not resolve the Emergency
Evacuation Claims based on a common body of evidence.
Likewise, the commonality requirement is not met as to the
Disability Class, and the Court denies certification as to that
class. Since the Disabilities Class contains different residents in
differently staffed facilities who live with different disabilities
and therefore require help with different activities of daily
living, the Court concludes that the reasonableness and necessity
of some global level of increased staffing cannot be resolved in
one stroke for each of the claims.
Moreover, the Court denies the motion to certify the Misleading
Statements and Omissions class as to the elder financial abuse
claim as well. The Plaintiffs motion to certify this class fails
for a much less complex reason than did the prior class:
determining whose property Brookdale obtained, a critical question
in determining whether the statute even applies to any given class
member, is not subject to classwide proof -- liability cannot be
established on a classwide basis. The Court finds that
individualized questions regarding Brookdale's liability and who
can recover under the statue would predominate over any common
questions.
The Court also denies Brookdale's motion to exclude: the opinions
of Ms. June Kailes, Dr. Cristina Flores, and Mr. Dale Schroyer; and
the testimony of Dr. Patrick Kennedy. The Court grants in part and
denies in part Brookdale's motion to exclude the testimony of Mr.
Douglas J. Cross, as well as the declaration and testimony of
Jeffery Mastin and Gary Waters.
Finally, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the
testimony of Mr. Douglas Anderson, Dr. Sheldon Jacobson and Dr. Ali
Saad. The Court also denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to
strike the supplemental declaration of Dr. Saad.
A full-text copy of the Redacted Order dated March 30, 2023, is
available https://tinyurl.com/38xnazda from Leagle.com.
CALIFORNIA STATE: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Fisk Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MADISON FISK, RAQUEL CASTRO, GRETA VISS, CLARE
BOTTERILL, MAYA BROSCH, HELEN BAUER, CARINA CLARK, NATALIE
FIGUEROA, ERICA GROTEGEER, KAITLIN HERI, OLIVIA PETRINE, AISHA
WATT, KAMRYN WHITWORTH, SARA ABSTEN, ELEANOR DAVIES, ALEXA DIETZ,
and LARISA SULCS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY and SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No.:
22-CV-173 TWR (MSB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Todd W. Robinson of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California grants in
part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts I
and III of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.
Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants the Board of Trustees of the California State University
and San Diego State University (collectively, "SDSU"), along with
the Plaintiffs' Opposition to and the Defendants' Reply in Support
of the Motion. The Court held a hearing on March 2, 2023.
The Plaintiffs, past and current female varsity student-athletes at
SDSU, initiated the lawsuit against the Defendants on Feb. 7, 2022,
alleging the Defendants, who receive federal funding, have engaged
in intentional discrimination based on sex in its athletics
programs in violation in Title IX. The Plaintiffs specifically
claim SDSU has violated Title IX and its guiding regulations by
depriving its female varsity student-athletes of equal athletic
financial aid, denying them equal athletic benefits and treatment,
and retaliating against them because some of them sued SDSU for
violating Title IX.
There are 17 named Plaintiffs and they seek to represent a class of
current and former SDSU female student-athletes whom they allege
have been harmed by SDSU's discrimination against female
student-athletes. The Plaintiffs allege that they were and are
eligible for athletic financial aid up to and including a full
scholarship, a cost-of-living stipend, summer aid, fifth-year aid,
and NCAA Special Assistance Funds if appropriate. But SDSU has not
paid its female varsity student-athletes equal athletic financial
aid for over a decade, even though SDSU can provide athletic
financial aid at any point during an academic year and is thus able
to correct any discriminatory allocation at any point. The cost of
attendance at SDSU varies for in-state and out-of-state residents:
between 2018 and 2022, the in-state cost was $28,142 per year and
the out-of-state cost was $39,230 per year.
The Plaintiffs allege that between 2018 and 2020, SDSU female
student-athletes received over $1.2 million less in athletic
financial aid, and the male student-athletes received over $1.2
million more, than they would have if SDSU had granted aid in
proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in
intercollegiate athletics.
On Feb. 16, 2022, nine days after the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit,
SDSU's women's track and field team held a recorded Zoom meeting.
Five of the named Plaintiffs were present, along with most of the
other members of the track and field team. At the meeting, before
discussing their upcoming competition, SDSU told all of the team
members that it was disappointed and unhappy with the five women on
the team who had brought the Title IX lawsuit against the school.
The Plaintiffs allege SDSU implicitly threatened those who
participated or assisted in the lawsuit with removal from the team.
In addition, they contend that SDSU's refusal to take action to
ameliorate or minimize the harm done by its allegedly retaliatory
comments made the situation worse.
After the Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint, the Defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. The Plaintiffs
then filed a First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The Defendants again filed a Motion to
Dismiss. The Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion and granted the Plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.
The Plaintiffs then filed a timely SAC, alleging the following
violations of Title IX: (1) SDSU failed to provide proportional
athletic financial aid to female student-athletes, (2) SDSU failed
to provide equal treatment and benefits to female student-athletes,
and (3) SDSU retaliated against the Plaintiffs for filing the
lawsuit. They seek class certification as well as declaratory,
injunctive, and monetary relief. The Defendants now move to dismiss
Counts I and III of the Plaintiffs' SAC pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
As is relevant to the instant Motion, the Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants, in violation of Title IX, failed to provide
proportional athletic financial aid to female student-athletes
(Claim I) and retaliated against Plaintiffs for filing the lawsuit
(Claim III). The Defendants seek to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
disproportionate financial aid claim and retaliation claim on the
grounds that: (1) the Plaintiffs fail to allege standing to bring
either claim; and (2) even if they had standing, the Plaintiffs
fail to state plausible claims.
With regard to the Plaintiffs' third theory for psychological and
stigmatic injuries, Judge Robinson finds that (1) no named
Plaintiffs sufficiently allege an injury-in-fact that is
redressable by the Plaintiffs' request for damages; (2) the Court
lacks jurisdiction over claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief by the three named Plaintiffs who were no longer students at
SDSU when the Original Complaint was filed; (3) the named
Plaintiffs who were on the women's rowing team before it was
eliminated and were still students at SDSU at the time the Original
Complaint was filed fail to allege how the injunctive and
declaratory relief they request would redress their alleged
stigmatic injury; and (4) the named Plaintiffs on the SDSU track
and field team who were still student-athletes at the time the
Original Complaint was filed sufficiently allege that their
stigmatic injuries-in-fact are redressable by the injunctive and
declaratory relief they seek.
Judge Robinson therefore grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Title IX financial aid
claim for lack of standing.
In addition to arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a
Title IX disproportionate financial aid claim, the Defendants also
argue that Plaintiffs have not plausibly pled a claim for
disproportionate financial aid. The Plaintiffs dispute the
Defendants' description of their Second Amended Complaint and
contend the SAC plausibly alleges a Title IX financial aid claim,
pointing to specific allegations of financial aid disparity and
explaining why each of the Defendants' asserted nondiscriminatory
reasons are insufficient to explain the disparity.
Judge Robinson finds that the Plaintiffs' SAC provides sufficient
factual allegations at the pleading stage to support their claim of
an unlawful disparity in financial aid under Title IX. He therefore
denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' first cause of
action for failure to state a claim.
Finally, as to the Plaintiffs' Title IX financial aid claim, the
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any
monetary damages because Defendants were not on notice that they
would be exposed to such liability. In their Motion, they state
that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover monetary damages,
and any such claim should be stricken.
To the extent the Defendants seek to dismiss the damages portion of
the Plaintiffs' financial claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Judge Robinson
declines to take such a piecemeal approach. In any event, whether
the Plaintiffs will be able to prove any alleged monetary damages
is a question better suited for a later stage in the proceedings.
Judge Robinson therefore denies the Defendants' request to strike
the Plaintiffs' claim for monetary damages.
The Plaintiffs also assert a claim for retaliation against the
Defendants based on comments made during a track and field team
meeting via Zoom on Feb. 16, 2022. The Court's prior Order
dismissed the retaliation claim in the Plaintiffs' FAC on the
grounds that the 12 named Plaintiffs who did not attend the Zoom
meeting (the "Absent Plaintiffs") lacked standing to bring a
retaliation claim and the Plaintiffs on the track and field team
that did attend the Zoom meeting (the "Present Plaintiffs") failed
to allege an adverse action. The Defendants focus their argument
about standing on the Absent Plaintiffs, stating, only five of the
17 named Plaintiffs were actually present during the Zoom meeting
and the 12 Plaintiffs who did not attend this meeting could not
have reasonably suffered any harm from a comment they did not
hear.
Judge Robinson finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to provide
sufficient factual and legal support for their allegation that the
Absent Plaintiffs have standing to pursue a retaliation claim.
Accordingly, he grants the Defendants' Motion as to the Absent
Plaintiffs' lack of standing to assert a retaliation claim.
Judge Robinson denies the Defendants' Motion to the extent it seeks
dismissal of the Present Plaintiffs' retaliation claim for failure
to state a claim. He declines to strike particular damage portions
of the Plaintiffs' claims at this stage in the proceedings. The
Defendant does not address the propriety of seeking to dismiss part
of a single cause of action, despite the fact that numerous courts
have concluded that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) does
not provide a mechanism for dismissing only a portion of a claim.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Robinson grants in part and denies
in part the Defendants' Motion as follows:
(1) Under the Plaintiffs' "lost opportunity" theory, the
Plaintiffs previously on the rowing team, except Ms. Figueroa,
sufficiently allege an injury-in-fact that is redressable by the
Plaintiffs' request for damages;
(2) The Court lacks jurisdiction over claims for injunctive
and declaratory by the three named Plaintiffs who were no longer
students at SDSU when the Original Complaint was filed;
(3) The Plaintiffs who were previously on the rowing team
and who were still students at SDSU at the time the Original
Complaint was filed fail to allege how the injunctive and
declaratory relief they request would redress any of their alleged
injuries;
(4) The Plaintiffs on the track and field team fail to
allege sufficient facts to show they have standing under the "lost
opportunity" theory;
(5) No named Plaintiffs sufficiently allege they suffered an
injury-in-fact under the Plaintiffs' "smaller financial award"
theory;
(6) No named Plaintiffs sufficiently allege an
injury-in-fact under the "stigmatic harms" theory that is
redressable by the Plaintiffs' request for damages;
(7) The named Plaintiffs on the SDSU track and field team
who were still student-athletes at the time the Original Complaint
was filed sufficiently allege that their stigmatic injuries-in-fact
are redressable by the injunctive and declaratory relief they
seek;
(8) The Plaintiffs that have standing plausibly allege a
Title IX financial aid claim;
(9) The Absent Plaintiffs fail to allege standing to pursue
a retaliation claim; and
(10) The Present Plaintiffs plausibly allege a retaliation
claim.
Finally, Judge Robinson grants the Plaintiffs leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint addressing the above-enumerated deficiencies
within 30 days of the date the Order is electronically docketed,
with the exception that the Plaintiffs may not make further
attempts to allege the Absent Plaintiffs have standing to bring a
retaliation claim because any amendment in that regard would be
futile. Should the Plaintiffs elect not to file a timely amended
complaint, the action will proceed as to those Plaintiffs who have
standing for each cause of action.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5c3tucvz from Leagle.com.
CARLOTZ INC: Class Action Arising From SPAC Merger Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of Lexology reports that on March 31, 2023,
Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action
arising out of a SPAC transaction that resulted in a
consignment-to-retail used car marketplace becoming publicly
traded. In re CarLotz, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2023 WL 2744064 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 31, 2023). Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
marketplace, the SPAC entity, and certain related entities and
individuals, alleging that they made misrepresentations regarding
the marketplace's business model. Id. at *2. The Court held that
plaintiffs lacked standing to sue under either the Securities Act
or Exchange Act, and accordingly dismissed the complaint while
permitting plaintiffs leave to replead.
With respect to the Exchange Act claims, the Court explained that
the Second Circuit's recent decision in Menora Mivtachim Insurance
Ltd. v. Frutarom Industries Ltd., 54 F.4th 82 (2d Cir. 2022)
(addressed in our prior post), held that a plaintiff, to have
standing, must have bought or sold the specific security about
which a misstatement was made. CarLotz, 2023 WL 2744064, at *4. The
Court further observed that nearly all the challenged statements
were allegedly made by the car marketplace prior to the de-SPAC
transaction when it was not publicly held. Id. at *4-5. Thus, while
certain named plaintiffs had purchased shares in the SPAC entity
and some had purchased shares following the de-SPAC transaction in
the car marketplace, plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue claims
regarding statements made by the car marketplace when it was still
a private company. Id. While plaintiffs argued that this result
amounted to a "loophole" for SPAC transactions, the Court noted
that the Second Circuit had considered and rejected similar policy
concerns and emphasized that only Congress could amend the Exchange
Act. Id. at *5.
With respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act, the Court determined that plaintiffs failed to
allege that plaintiffs purchased shares traceable to the
registration statement for the merger transaction between the car
marketplace and the SPAC. Id. at *6. The Court observed that the
complaint alleged that plaintiffs purchased shares in the SPAC
prior to the challenged offering, and therefore the Court
determined that such shares could not have been traceable to that
offering. Id. at *7. The Court applied the Second Circuit's
decision in DeMaria v. Andersen, 318 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2003), which
held that a plaintiff can only challenge a registration statement
governing the securities purchased by that plaintiff. CarLotz, 2023
WL 2744064, at *7. The Court further rejected plaintiffs' argument
that the merger effectively transformed plaintiff's SPAC shares
into shares for the newly merged company, as this did not change
the applicable registration statement. Id. at *7-8. In addition,
while plaintiffs pointed to statements by the SEC and an SEC
proposed rule indicating that misrepresentations in a registration
statement for a de-SPAC transaction should be subject to Section 11
of the Securities Act, the Court explained that this could not
trump the Second Court’s holding. Id.
The Court also rejected plaintiffs' Section 12(a)(2) claim,
concluding that such a claim requires that plaintiffs have
purchased shares in an initial public offering, which plaintiffs
did not allege here. Id. at *8. [GN]
CHICAGO, IL: Drivers Class Suit Cited for Cellphone Use Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Chicago Team reports that last April 14, 2023, a judge ruled
the lawsuit could become a class action lawsuit, which could open
the door for thousands of other drivers to file a claim.
Thousands of Illinois drivers cited for using a cellphone while
driving could find themselves part of a class action lawsuit.
Attorneys heading up the claim said proper protocol was not
followed. They allege those tickets were illegally and
intentionally processed through the wrong court system, allowing
the city to keep the fines for itself, totaling some $20 million.
Steve Michelini got one of those tickets back in 2014 and he's now
the lead plaintiff.
"We feel like the city did something obviously not right and I was
always told that you want to do the right thing and we're actually
getting to the space where our voice can be finally heard,"
Michelini said.
Last April 14, 2023, a judge ruled the lawsuit could become a class
action lawsuit, which could open the door for thousands of other
drivers to file a claim.
CBS 2 reached out to the city for comment and a spokesperson for
the Law Department said it will not comment on ongoing legislation.
[GN]
CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU: More Time to File Class Cert Briefing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.K., et al., v.
CHRISTOPHER SUNUNU, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the time in which
to file memoranda in response and in reply to Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification by 60 days respectively.
-- As extended, the Defendants would have until June 13, 2023 to
file their response to the Plaintiffs' motion, and the
Plaintiffs
would have until August 21, 2023 to file their reply in
support
of the Motion.
On March 31, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. Because of the complexity of the Motion, as well as
the need to analyze the declarations of and depose the four
potential experts, there is good cause to extend Defendants' time
to file their response to Plaintiffs' Motion to June 13, 2023, the
Parties contend.
There is good cause to extend the Plaintiffs' time to file their
reply in support of the Motion to August 21, 2023, because
Plaintiffs anticipate that they will need discovery, including
possible expert discovery and supplementation to respond to the
Defendants' objections to class certification, the Parties add.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A1aoPF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle Wangerin, Esq.
Kay E. Drought, Esq.
NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
154 High Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Telephone: (603) 431-7411
Facsimile: (603) 431-8025
E-mail: mwangerin@nhla.org
kdrought@nhla.org
- and -
Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq.
18 Low Avenue
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 224-5591
E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org
henry@aclu-nh.org
- and -
Jennifer A. Eber, Esq.
Mia A. Fry, Esq.
Kayla J. Turner, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER-NH, INC.
64 North Main Street, Suite 2
Concord, NH 03301-4913
Telephone: (603) 228-0432
Facsimile: (603) 225-2077
E-mail: jennifere@drcnh.org
miaf@drcnh.org
kaylat@drcnh.org
- and -
Ira Lustbader, Esq.
Nicole Taykhman, Esq.
Kathleen Simon, Esq.
Carolyn Hite, Esq.
Aleshadye Getachew, Esq.
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC.
88 Pine Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 683-2210
Facsimile: (212) 683-4015
E-mail: ilustbader@childrensrights.org
ntaykhman@childrensrights.org
ksimon@childrensrights.org
chite@childrensrights.org
agetachew@childrensrights.org
- and -
Konrad L. Cailteux
Katheryn Maldonado
Kathleen Stanaro
Sarah Ryu
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile (212) 310-8007
E-mail: Katheryn.Maldonado@weil.com
Sarah.Ryu@weil.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John M. Formella, Esq.
Jennifer S. Ramsey, Esq.
Nathan W. Kenison-Marvin, Esq.
NEW HAMPSHIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CIVIL BUREAU
New Hampshire Department of Justice
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301-6397
Telephone: (603) 271-3650
E-mail: Jennifer.s.ramsey@doj.nh.gov
- and -
Philip J. Peisch, Esq.
Caroline M. Brown, Esq.
Julia M. Siegenberg, Esq.
BROWN & PEISCH PLLC
1233 20th St. NW, Suite 505
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: ppeisch@brownandpeisch.com
CLASSY CLOSETS: May 23 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ivol Stever and Ivan
Mendez, filing individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Classy Closets, Etc., Inc. an Arizona Corporation,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01337-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting an extension to the following deadlines:
(a) Joint Report on Settlement from April 10, 2023 to May 10,
2023;
(b) Class Certification Motion deadline from April 23, 2023 to
May
23, 2023;
(c) Class Certification Response deadline from May 7, 2023 to
June
7, 2023; and
(d) Class Certification Reply deadline from May 14, 2023 to June
14, 2023.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43EWkIS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael R. Pruitt, Esq.
Nathaniel J. Hill, Esq.
JACKSON WHITE
40 North Center Street, Suite 200
Mesa, AZ 85201
E-mail: mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com
nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Megan E. Ritenour, Esq.
Brittany Reed, Esq.
GUST ROSENFELD P.L.C.
Brittany Reed -- 033253
One East Washington Street, Suite 1600
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2553
E-mail: mritenour@gustlaw.com
reed@gustlaw.com
CORNERSTONE TRADING: Residents Sue Over Massive Industrial Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHIO reports that Richmond residents impacted by a massive
industrial fire earlier this month have filed a class-action
lawsuit against the man who owned the facility and his company.
A class-action lawsuit was filed in Wayne County Courts Thursday
against the man who owned the plastics recycling facility located
at 308 NW F Street, and his company Cornerstone Trading Group LLC.
The plaintiffs listed in the suit lived in the area required to
evacuate due to the fire or owned businesses in the area.
The lawsuit alleges that for several years prior to the fire, the
property owner "failed to take any affirmative steps to remedy the
unsafe ultra-hazardous conditions that existed within the
Industrial Facility and surrounding grounds."
News Center 7 previously reported that in July 2019 an unsafe
building order in relation to the facility was filed with the Wayne
County Recorder. The current property owner was listed as the owner
of the facility during this time.
As a result of the large fire on April 11, around 2,000 people were
ordered to evacuate their homes — resulting in businesses having
to close their doors and some residents being unable to work, the
lawsuit alleges.
The orders weren't lifted until Sunday, April 16.
Residents also said due to noxious fumes and hazardous materials
they experienced adverse health effects including, but not limited
to inhalation of toxic smoke, headaches, breathing complications,
headaches, dizziness, skin rashes and chest pain -- as well as
"great physical, emotional and psychological pain and suffering,"
the lawsuit states.
The fire also caused residents' property value to experience a
"rapid decline," court documents state.
Three plaintiffs are listed on court documents but the lawsuit
states that "hundreds, if not thousands, more persons exist for
this class."
The lawsuit asks for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of
$25,000, as well as attorney and legal fees and other monetary
relief to which the plaintiffs may be entitled. [GN]
CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE: Santiago Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN SANTIAGO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE, LLC d/b/a CUISINE
BY CLAUDETTE, CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE ARVERNE LLC d/b/a CUISINE BY
CLAUDETTE, GREENHOUSE ROCKAWAY LLC d/b/a GREENHOUSE CAFE, CLAUDETTE
FLATOW, JOHN EFRATI, and YARDEN FLATOW, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-02675 (E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2023) alleges, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, that Plaintiff
and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from
Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving;
unpaid wages; compensation for late payment of wages; unpaid spread
of hours premium; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a barista at
Defendants' Cuisine by Claudette Restaurant from December 12, 2017
until her termination on September 14, 2022.
In addition to federal and state law violations, the Plaintiff
alleges that, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, she and others
similarly situated are entitled to damages and fees and costs in
this matter because Defendants willfully filed fraudulent tax
information forms with the Internal Revenue Service. She further
asserts that Defendants breached their contract with her and Class
Members by failing to pay employer payroll taxes, as required by
the Federal Insurance Contribution Act.
The Defendants operate three restaurants, two under the trade name
Cuisine by Claudette, and one under the trade name Greenhouse
Café, which are located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Final Nod of Class Action Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH ALEXANDER, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:17-cv-01885-ABJ (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter the proposed final approval order
with any revisions consistent with the material provisions of the
Settlement Agreement that the Court deems necessary or appropriate.
-- Class Counsel are seeking fees in the amount of $130,000
inclusive of amounts paid to the expert who analyzed the
arrests
for probable cause. This amounts to about 29% of the class
fund
or less since the fee award of $130,000 also includes
litigation
expenses.
-- The percentage of the fund fee is reasonable considering the
highly risky nature of the case, the number of hours
expended,
the exceptional result, the quality of representation and
other factors.
-- This percentage is well within the range of fees awarded by
District Courts in the D.C. Circuit, where District Courts
have
found awards of up to 45% of the fund to be reasonable.
-- The settlement also provides for an incentive award for the
Class Representative, Mr. Alexander, in the amount of $5,000
in
addition to the compensation received from the Class
Fund.
The Plaintiff, Joseph Alexander, and the class members are persons
who (i) were arrested solely for "incommoding" under D.C. Code
section 22-1307; (ii) on or after September 18, 2014; and (iii)
either were released without charges being filed or had any charges
dismissed nolle prosequi.
The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on September 18,
2017, challenging what he contended was the systematic violation of
his and the putative class members' constitutional rights by the
District of Columbia's police department's arresting them for
alleged violations of the District's "incommoding" statute without
probable cause because of their race in violation of their Fourth
Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights, respectively.
The proposed allocation in the Settlement Agreement is:
-- $5,000 for the Class Representative as an incentive award in
addition to the compensation received from the Class Fund;
-- $290,000 is allocated to the Class Fund. Each member of the
class shall receive compensation from the Class Fund if a
timely
notice of claim is submitted to and approved by the Class
Administrator. The amount of each share shall be determined
on a
pro rata basis from the Class Fund, subject to a maximum of
$4,00;
-- $130,000.00 for Attorney's Fees; and
-- Claims Administration - The settlement agreement provided
that
$25,000 be paid to the claims administrator and that payment
has
already been made by the District. JND now estimates the
total
cost will be $32,215.00 and agrees that any additional amount
will be paid in accordance with the settlement agreement;
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A3NNBV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Claiborne, Esq.
WILLIAM CLAIBORNE
717 D Street, N.W., Suite No. 300
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 824-0700
E-mail claibornelaw@gmail.com
DJGN LLC: Benjamin Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARETH BENJAMIN,
CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN, and AUSTIN BRADY, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated, v. DJGN LLC, DJGN LEXINGTON, LLC,
and DJGN INDY, LLC d/b/a TONY'S STEAKS & SEAFOOD, Case No.
1:22-cv-00166-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order approving the collective Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) settlement, granting Rule 23 class certification for
settlement purposes, and preliminarily approving the parties'
proposed Rule 23 class settlement.
Specifically, the Named Plaintiffs seek an order granting the
following relief:
-- First, Named Plaintiffs move for approval of the resolution
of
their FLSA claims, in accordance with 29 U.S.C. section
216(b).
-- Second, Named Plaintiffs move for certification, for
settlement
purposes only, of settlement classes pursuant to Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of three settlement
classes.
The settlement classes consist of current and former
employees
of the Defendants who worked as servers and who earned less
than
the applicable federal and state minimum wage rates per hour
and
received customer tips (referred as "Servers") at the Tony's
Steaks & Seafood restaurants (Tony's) in Cincinnati, Ohio;
Lexington, Kentucky; and Indianapolis, Indiana.
Specifically, the Rule 23 Classes include the following
individuals:
-- the Rule 23 Ohio Class
"All current and former Servers of Defendant DJGN LLC at its
Cincinnati, Ohio restaurant who worked at least one workweek as
a Server at any time from March 30, 2019 through July 1, 2022;"
-- the Rule 23 Kentucky Class
"All current and former Servers of Defendant DJGN Lexington,
LLC at its Lexington, Kentucky restaurant who worked at least
one
workweek as a Server at any time from March 3, 2017 to July 1,
2022;" and
-- the Rule 23 Indiana Class
"All current and former Servers of Defendant DJGN Indy, LLC at
its Indianapolis, Indiana restaurant who worked at least one
workweek as a Server at any time from April 4, 2020 to July 1,
2022;"
Third, Named Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court
appoint, for settlement purposes only:
(a) Named Plaintiff Gareth Benjamin as a Class Representative
of
the Rule 23 Ohio Class;
(b) Named Plaintiff Christopher Sullivan as Class
Representative
of the Rule 23 Kentucky Class; and
(c) Named Plaintiff Austin Brady as Class Representative of the
Rule 23 Indiana Class.
Fourth, Named Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court
appoint, for settlement purposes only, the Plaintiffs' attorneys,
David W. Garrison and Joshua A. Frank of Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC as Class Counsel for the Rule 23 Classes.
Fifth, Named Plaintiffs move this Court for preliminary approval of
the parties' Settlement of the Rule 23 Classes' claims, including
approval of all aspects of the form and procedure for class notice
and claims set.
Sixth, Named Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court set a
Fairness Hearing for final approval of the Settlement, consistent
with the time frame set forth in the Proposed Order.
The Plaintiffs also request that this Court set a deadline for the
filing of a motion for final approval and a motion for an award of
attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel.
The Named Plaintiffs and proposed Class Representatives, Gareth
Benjamin, Christopher Sullivan, and Austin Brady and Defendants
DJGN LLC, DJGN Lexington, LLC, and DJGN Indy, LLC have entered into
a written settlement agreement that resolves the pending state law
claims (under Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana state law) on a Rule 23
class basis and federal claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) on a collective basis, subject to the Court's approval.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GOigHI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Brian R. Noethlich, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
bnoethlich@barkanmeizlish.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Vincent P. Antaki, Esq.
REMINGER CO., LPA
525 Vine Street, Suite 1500
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 721-1311
Facsimile: (513) 721-2553
E-mail: vantaki@reminger.com
DL Y LLC: Mendoza Sues to Recover Unpaid Earned Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Mendoza, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. DL Y LLC d/b/a DA LONG YI HOT POT, and YUXIN JIANG
individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-03046 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2023), is
brought to recover unpaid earned wages, overtime wages, statutory
penalties, compensatory and punitive damages, and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law
("NYLL").
Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was not
compensated at the appropriate overtime rate of pay. The
Plaintiff's salary did not include overtime. Rather, the Plaintiff
was only paid for the first 40 hours that he worked. The Defendants
never provided the Plaintiff with a written wage notice setting
forth his regular hourly rate of pay and corresponding overtime
rate of pay. When the Plaintiff was paid by Defendants, Defendants
did not provide Plaintiff with a notation, or any other
documentation of his hours worked during that pay period or her
rate of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a prep cook.
Da Long operates a Chinese restaurant in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yale Pollack, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
66 Split Rock Road
Syosset, NY 11791
- and -
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 323-6980
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Grants LACERA's Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio grants the Motion for Class
Certification filed by the Lead Plaintiff, Los Angeles County
Employees Retirement Association, in the case captioned as In re
FIRSTENERGY CORP SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-3785 (S.D.
Ohio)
The case is a consolidated action for securities fraud brought by
Lead Plaintiff Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association
on behalf of a putative class of investors in the Ohio-based
electrical utility company FirstEnergy Corporation. The Plaintiffs
allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities Act of 1933 by FirstEnergy, 25 named officers and
directors, and 16 underwriters, in relation to the Ohio House Bill
6 scandal.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint details a large corruption and bribery
scheme perpetrated by FirstEnergy and its senior executives between
Feb. 21, 2017, and July 21, 2020, inclusive. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that FirstEnergy paid approximately $60 million
to Ohio's former Speaker of the House Larry Householder, the former
Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio -- Sam
Randazzo, and others, via a web of lobbyists, shell companies, and
political action committees. In exchange, FirstEnergy received a
bailout of its failing nuclear power plants, in the form of HB6.
HB6 delivered approximately $2 billion to FirstEnergy: $1.3 billion
in a ratepayer-funded subsidy and $700 million in a "decoupling"
provision that would allow FirstEnergy to charge artificially high
rates. The scheme unraveled on July 21, 2020, when Householder and
his associates were arrested and charged in connection with the
bribery scheme.
Even assuming the validity of Defendants' contention that
numerosity must be shown for each of the Notes and the common
stock, the Court nonetheless finds that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied the numerosity requirement. Considering the Plaintiffs'
evidence that the stock was owned by roughly 1,400 large
institutional investors, had an average weekly trading value
exceeding 21.7 million shares, and was traded on the NYSE during
the Class Period, however, the Plaintiffs demonstrate numerosity
with respect to the stock. With respect to the Notes, the Court
likewise finds sufficient that the total outstanding par value of
the Notes during the Class Period was $6.5 billion, with each
outstanding Note issuance ranging from $300 million to $1.5
billion. The Court thus finds the Plaintiffs' evidence of
nationally traded securities sufficient to satisfy numerosity.
Given that the commonality prong of Rule 23(a) requires only that
the resolution of just one issue will affect all or a substantial
swath of the putative class, the Court finds that it is satisfied
here by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' central allegation in this
case is that the Defendants made materially false or misleading
statements and omissions to investors concerning the fraudulent
scheme in violation of federal securities law. The misconduct, the
Plaintiffs allege, caused the putative class members to suffer
harm. Within that allegation are numerous questions common to the
class which must be resolved to give rise to liability, including
whether the Defendants indeed made material statements and
omissions relating to the FirstEnergy scandal, whether Defendants
violated federal securities laws, and whether Plaintiffs were
injured because of the alleged misconduct. The Court holds that the
resolution of any of these questions will advance the litigation by
demonstrating the existence or absence of liability for
Defendants.
In the same fashion that they satisfy the commonality requirement,
the Plaintiffs also meet the typicality requirement. The Court
finds that the Plaintiffs' claims and those of the putative class
members derive from the same course of conduct and rely on the same
legal theory alleged against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege
that they were all similarly injured by purchasing securities
impacted by artificial inflation caused by Defendants' concealment
of FirstEnergy's fraud.
This Court likewise finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden
of showing that class counsel is qualified and able to conduct the
litigation. The Plaintiffs have retained as lead counsel the firm
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, which has been found sufficiently
experienced by other courts in this circuit for the purposes of the
adequacy analysis. The Court determines that the Plaintiffs have
reviewed case documents, consistently engaged in coordination with
class counsel, moved to consolidate the cases, defended against ten
motions to dismiss, engaged actively in the discovery process, and
remained consistently involved throughout this complex matter.
Considering these facts, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs
satisfy the adequacy prong.
Given the record and Plaintiffs' representations at oral argument,
the Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs' defined class is
sufficiently definite. The Court finds it administratively feasible
to determine objectively whether a person "purchased or otherwise
acquired FirstEnergy Securities during the period from Feb. 21,
2017 through July 21, 2020, inclusive." As such, the Court deems
the ascertainability requirement to be satisfied.
The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion and certifies the class under
subsection 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In
addition, the Court appoints Lead Counsel Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP as class counsel and Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP as
liaison counsel.
A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order dated March 30, 2023, is
available https://tinyurl.com/yckaxvz2 from Leagle.com.
FORD MOTOR: Averts F-150, Ranger Fuel Economy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Ford Motor Co
on Friday defeated an appeal by consumers who said the automaker
cheated on fuel economy tests for its F-150 and Ranger trucks,
allowing it to inflate mileage estimates on window stickers.
In a 3-0 decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Cincinnati said federal law gave the Environmental Protection
Agency authority to estimate vehicle fuel economy, preempting the
plaintiffs' state law-based claims.
The proposed class action covered 2018-2020 model year F-150s, and
2019-2020 model year Rangers.
Ford was accused of misleading the EPA by intentionally
miscalculating factors used in certification testing.
The plaintiffs said this led the EPA to overestimate fuel economy
by as much as 15 per cent, inducing them to overpay for their
trucks and resulting in extra fuel costs.
Circuit Judge Richard Griffin, however, said federal law provided
standards for the EPA's estimates, and the estimates did not need
to be strictly accurate. He also said the EPA had "significant
authority" to investigate and deter fraud.
"State-law tort claims, like plaintiffs', would skew this balance
and permit juries to take the EPA's place in determining whether
fuel economy estimates are reasonable," Griffin wrote.
Friday's decision upheld a February 2022 ruling by Chief Judge Sean
Cox in federal court in Detroit.
"This is a horrible result for consumers," Steve Berman, a lawyer
for the plaintiffs, said in an email. "This is dead against Supreme
Court precedent that gives states the right to regulate deceptive
conduct."
Ford said in a statement it was pleased the court concluded that
consumers can rely on the EPA's testing process and data.
In February 2021, the Dearborn, Michigan-based automaker said the
U.S. Department of Justice had closed a criminal probe into its
fuel economy and emissions certification process without taking
action.
The case is In re: Ford Motor Co F-150 and Ranger Truck Fuel
Economy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 6th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, No. 22-1245. [GN]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Faces Quinones Shareholder Suit in MA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2023, that in June 3, 2021,
and June 22, 2021, purported stockholders of the company filed
putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District court for the
District of Massachusetts against the company and the company's
Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director, David Lucchino.
On March 21, 2022, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
lawsuit, "Quinones et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. et al."
and on May 16, 2022, the company's Chief Development Officer, Dr.
Carl LeBel, was added as a defendant.
The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), due to allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions about the company's Phase 2a clinical trial (FX-322-202)
for its product candidate FX-322 in the company's public
disclosures between October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, damages in connection with the
company's allegedly artificially inflated stock price between
October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021 as a result of those allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions, as well as interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in
Massachusetts.
FTX TRADING: Ex-NBA O'Neal Served With Class Suit Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Thompson of Defector reports that Ladies and gentlemen, they
got him. A historic day -- mark it on your calendar for all time:
April 16, 2023 afternoon, process servers finally cornered
Shaquille O'Neal outside of his residence in Atlanta and forced him
to accept transmission of documents related to a class-action
lawsuit filed way back in November 2022. After months spent
unsuccessfully hounding his various properties, after a failed
motion to have a Florida court adopt a Texas legal standard that
would permit plaintiffs to serve O'Neal electronically by sliding
into his direct messages, after lawyers resorted to quite literally
tweet-shaming O'Neal from the parking lot in front of the TNT
studio where he films live episodes of Inside the NBA, at last a
process server was able to physically pass documents into O'Neal's
enormous hands, bringing to a close this months-long saga.
As reported by The Block, plaintiff's attorney Adam Moskowitz
confirmed that the "end of this silly sideshow" was captured on
video on the doorstep of O'Neal's Atlanta home. "We just served
personally Shaquille O'Neal outside his house with a copy of our
complaint at 4pm," Moskowitz told The Block in an email. "His home
video cameras recorded our service and we have made it very clear,
he is not to destroy and/or erase any of these security tapes,
because they must be preserved for our lawsuit."
O'Neal is now formally engaged in the complaint, and will
eventually be required to appear in federal court. According to the
extremely desperate tweets last week from Moskowitz's law firm,
O'Neal was the last of the "FTX celebrities" -- a group which,
depending upon how you feel about Udonis Haslem's claims to fame,
features up to nine other paid FTX spokespeople -- to agree to
receive his legal complaint. The group includes Tom Brady, Gisele
Bündchen, Larry David, Shohei Ohtani, Trevor Lawrence, Stephen
Curry, David Ortiz, and Naomi Osaka, and all are accused of using
their fame to lure unsuspecting retail investors into investing in
Sam Bankman-Fried's "Deceptive FTX Platform." FTX, a cryptocurrency
exchange closely associated with a Bankman-Fried-run crypto-hedge
fund, went kerblooey in November after CoinDesk research showed
that a whopping $5.8 billion of FTX's "assets" were in the form of
its own worthless, imaginary coin/security called FTT. O'Neal, who
famously will endorse just about anything at any time, endorsed FTX
in a video posted online in June 2022. [GN]
FUBOTV INC: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants without prejudice the motion
to dismiss filed by Defendants FuboTv, David Gandler, Edgar M.
Bronfman Jr., and Simone Nardi in the case captioned In re FuboTV
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-01412 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y.).
In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiff Nordine Aamchoune,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of FuboTV stock,
brings this action against the Defendants alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Judge Carter explains: "When a plaintiff has alleged securities
fraud claims, the complaint is subject to the heightened pleading
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. . . These
heightened pleading standards. . . make clear that 'plaintiffs must
provide sufficient particularity in their allegations to support a
plausible inference that it is more likely than not that a
securities law violation has been committed.'"
The Defendants assert that the amended complaint fails to state a
claim for violation of the Exchange Act -- the Plaintiff's
allegations fail to plausibly allege any actionable misstatement or
omission with the requisite particularity, that they have failed to
allege scienter, and that they have failed to allege loss
causation.
Except for two sets of challenged statements in the 2019 Annual
Report and the July 8, 2020 Letter to Shareholders, the Court
agrees with the Defendant that "the Plaintiff's use of 'puzzle
pleading' does not satisfy the heightened pleading requirements
under the PLSRA -- the amended complaint fails to plead fraud with
particularity as to the vast majority of the alleged 'materially
false and misleading statements.'" As to the remaining challenged
statements, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has still failed to
plead a material misstatement or omission.
The Court assumes that the challenged 2019 Annual Report
corresponds to the Plaintiff's second adverse fact alleging that
"Fubo's data and inventory was not differentiated to allow Fubo to
achieve its long-term advertising growth goals." The Court finds
that "the 2019 Annual Report statements do not discuss the Company
sharing user data with content providers or advertisers. . . It is
unclear how the Plaintiff's reference to only the Kerrisdale Report
renders the challenged statement misleading or false." The Court
concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to plead "particularized,
factual material that would permit the Court to infer that the
Defendants' statements were false or misleading when made."
The Plaintiff also alleges that the statement in the July 8, 2020
Letter to Shareholders was misleading or false because the
Defendants failed to disclose a material fact.
The Court finds, however, that: "(a) Plaintiff's contention ignores
the disclosure made by Defendants -- the Company's S-1A filing, the
Defendants did disclose that both Hulu Live and YouTube TV "offer
streaming products that compete with our platform;" (b) the July 8
Letter does not address subscription costs, which were publicly
known facts; (c) David Gandler's statements do not mention blackout
abilities and it is therefore unclear how these alleged omitted
facts render his statements false or misleading; and (d) even if
the Court were to ignore the Defendants' disclosures, as to the
challenged statements concerning Fubo's "competitive strength," the
Court finds this is non-actionable puffery."
A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2023, is
available https://tinyurl.com/2rbxn2cw from Leagle.com.
GENIUS BRANDS: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genius Brands International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 13, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Exchange Act-related
securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
The Company, its Chief Executive Officer Andy Heyward, and its
Chief Financial Officer Robert Denton were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and styled In re Genius Brands
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
2:20-cv-07457 DSF (RAOx). Lead plaintiffs alleged generally that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by issuing allegedly
false or misleading statements about the Company, initially over an
alleged class period running from March into early July 2020.
Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of the alleged
class of persons who invested in the Company's common stock during
the alleged class period.
Defendants moved to dismiss lead plaintiffs’ amended complaint;
and in a decision issued on August 30, 2021, the Court dismissed
the amended complaint but granted lead plaintiffs a further
opportunity to plead a claim.
On September 27, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming the same defendants.
The new complaint alleged again that the Company made numerous
false or misleading statements about the Company's business and
business prospects, this time over an expanded alleged class period
that extended into March 2021; they again alleged that these
misstatements violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Lead plaintiffs again sought unspecified damages on behalf of an
alleged class of persons who invested in the Company's common stock
during the expanded alleged class period.
In November 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.
On July 15, 2022, the Court issued a decision dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.
On August 12, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing of
the appeal has concluded.
The Company cannot predict whether the Court will entertain oral
argument of the appeal, when a hearing might be scheduled, the
outcome of the appeal or the timing of a decision on the appeal.
In the above-mentioned active proceeding, the Company has denied
and continues to deny any wrongdoing and intends to defend the
claims vigorously.
Genius Brands International, Inc., a content and brand management
company, creates and licenses multimedia content for toddlers to
tweens worldwide.
HORIZON BANCORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April
22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Horizon Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: HBNC)
between March 9, 2022 and March 10, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 19, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Horizon securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Horizon class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12953 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 19, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company maintained deficient internal accounting controls relating
to its classification of certain loan balances and securities; (2)
as a result of the foregoing deficiencies, throughout 2022 the
Company issued quarterly financial statements containing errors
that would require subsequent revision; (3) restatement of the
foregoing financial statements would hinder the Company's ability
to timely file its annual report for 2022; and (4) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Horizon class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12953 mailto:or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
HORIZON BANCORP: Sued Over Deficient Internal Accounting Controls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Horizon
Bancorp Inc., the holding company for Horizon Bank, has been sued
over allegedly deficient internal accounting controls that caused
financial restatements and prevented timely filings.
Investor Chad Key filed the class-action complaint in the US
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Thursday. He
alleges the company's accounting controls led to misclassifications
of its loan balances and securities that resulted in erroneous
financial statements. The financial statements were allegedly
reissued with corrections and hindered the company's ability to
file its 2022 report on time. [GN]
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Suit Over Unlicensed Cannabis Growing Heard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nichole Norris, writing for Redhead Blackbelt, reports that on
April 25 at 11 a.m., a crucial hearing will take place–Thomas v
County of Humboldt, a class action suit challenging Humboldt's
Environmental Impact Reduction (HEIR) program under which more than
1200 people have been charged by the county with alleged code
violations related to unlicensed cannabis growing. Since 2018, the
county has taken in millions in fines and fees with the HEIR
cannabis abatement program, and the Plaintiffs allege the process
violated their constitutional rights.
Institute of Justice attorneys Jared McClain and Joshua House
elaborate on the five constitutional violations they allege the
County of Humboldt is guilty of at a town hall meeting at the
Mateel Community Center on November 16.
The suit's plaintiffs are Blu Graham, Corrine and Doug Thomas,
Rhonda Olson, and Cyro Glad (covered in previous articles). Though
the "class" also encompasses property owners who received a
cannabis abatement notice, then requested appeal hearings but have
not received one, and those who have not settled with the county.
The defendants are; the County of Humboldt, the Planning and
Building Department, Director John Ford in his official capacity,
and the current Board of Supervisors as an entity and the
Supervisors in their official capacities; Steve Madrone, Rex Bohn,
Mike Wilson, Michelle Bushnell and Natalie Arroyo.
The lawsuit was filed in October by the Institute for Justice (in
addition to Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP). The county is
represented by the firm of Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC.
Both sides have since filed their initial briefs of the case
(including motion to dismiss and complaint). The Plaintiffs have
set out what they claim are wrongful acts by the County, and the
County has set out its claims for why the case should not be heard
for a variety of reasons. Now the Honorable Judge Robert M. Illman
is Presiding at the hearing, and he will determine if the case may
proceed as it stands, if it may continue on some of the claims but
not others, or if it may continue at all.
The most recent Institute for Justice filing was their April 3,
Response in Opposition to the County's second Motion to Dismiss the
amended complaint, that summarizes the claims. It states,
"The Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged five distinct constitutional
violations; (A) the County's cannabis-abatement program violates
their procedural due-process rights; (B) the County's enforcement
of its abatement program without regard for probable cause and
against innocent purchasers violates their substantive liberty
interests; (C) the County places unconstitutional conditions on
landowners who need permits for their property while an abatement
case is pending; (D) the penalties the County imposes are
unconstitutionally excessive; and (E) the County's refusal to
provide a jury in abatement cases violates the Seventh Amendment."
The county's most recent filing was a Reply Brief in Support of the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 13,
which reintegrated their arguments against the plaintiffs five
Constitutional claims and why the amended complaint should be
entirely dismissed. It reads;
"-The Complaint fails to Plead a Claim upon which relief may be
granted;
-Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies (Counts One,
Two and Four);
-Plaintiffs redundantly and improperly sue individuals in their
official capacities; and
-Individual Defendants are subject to legislative and qualified
immunities."
(To view the County's entire Motion to Dismiss filed 3/3/23 click
here, or to read their Reply Brief in Support of the Motion to
Dismiss, filed 4/13/23, click here)
The Institute for Justice wrote in their Response to the County's
Motion to Dismiss, "None of the Plaintiffs were growing cannabis on
their properties… They received [abatement notices] because of
the County's systematic indifference to innocence… The Plaintiffs
ask this Court to deny the County's motion to dismiss so that they
can finally have the day in court that the County has denied them
for years."
Blu waited four and a half years before the county scheduled his
appeal hearing; Cyro has still been waiting for his hearing since
November 2018; Rhonda has been waiting since October 2020; and the
Thomases have been waiting since September 2021, with millions
collectively in costs, fines and fees pending.
If the suit moves past this first phase, the county can either
settle with the plaintiffs, or go to trial, possibly a jury trial
depending on how the process unfolds (ex. There would not be a jury
trial if the court throws out the fifth claim for the right to a
jury trial). A settlement would prevent a trial and that can happen
at any point through the appeals process, including at this week's
hearing. [GN]
HYDRO-QUEBEC: May Face Class Suit Over Power Outages in Montreal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia O'Malley at montreal.ctvnews.ca reports that a Montreal man
is seeking court authorization for a class-action lawsuit against
Hydro-Quebec after the ice storm knocked out power to over 1.1
million customers.
If approved, the suit would represent those in the Greater Montreal
region affected by the outages and is seeking $1,000 for each --
meaning it could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Daniel Rolland, who lost power for two days, filed a request at the
Montreal courthouse.
"[It was a] bad experience for the district and for the millions of
people in Montreal, it's incredible," Rolland told CTV News.
Rolland believes Hydro-Quebec neglected the maintenance of its
network to prevent outages caused by the ice storm. He says it's
now time to hold the utility accountable.
"Remember, after the famous ice storm, Hydro Quebec had sworn that
it will never see anything like this again, and see the result,"
said Rolland, referring to the 1998 ice storm that left some
Quebecers in the dark for weeks.
"Last year, after many small and large breakdowns, do you know what
a customer service representative told me? 'Oh, it may be caused by
a squirrel running over a cable.' Incredible. It's nonsense."
Quebecers who were left in the dark will have to wait and see if
they can join the class-action, as a judge must first look into the
request and decide whether or not to give it the go-ahead.
There were three deaths in Canada related to the April 5 storm, two
of them in Quebec. Heavy amounts of frozen rain toppled trees,
damaged power lines and even crushed cars.
Some Montreal-area neighbourhoods were without electricity for a
week, and shelters were opened in various municipalities.
Hydro-Quebec declined to comment on the potential class-action.
"Regarding the class action filed related to the ice storm, we will
not comment at this point. It is a legal procedure," spokesperson
Francis Labbé wrote in an email. [GN]
IKEA NORTH: TikTok influencer Urges to Claim Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
narcity.com reports that IKEA has agreed to pay out $24 million as
part of a class-action settlement, and one TikToker is urging
people to claim their share before it's too late.
The class-action settlement was actually announced in March, but
TikTok influencer Vivian Tu's explainer video recently blew up
because the deadline is just around the corner.
Tu addresses her video to "all former broke college students and
current broke adults," and explains that you can make "$30 to $60"
in five minutes by jumping on the case.
"IKEA may owe you MONEY," she says in the explainer video, which
has been watched well over 600,000 times.
Her video gets most of the facts right, although she says it's an
"IKEA North America" settlement, which isn't quite right. The class
action might be for IKEA North America Services, LLC and IKEA U.S.
Retail, LLC, but is based on stores in the U.S., as the official
settlement website shows.
Here's what you need to know about the IKEA class action
settlement, and how you might be able to get some cash out of the
Swedish furniture retailer in the days ahead. [GN]
INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY MCCAULOU-BERNATZ and
PAUL JENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. INSURANCE SUPERMARKET, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-00005-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer entered
an order setting the following schedule of class certification
related deadlines:
-- Affirmative class expert disclosure: September 20,
2023
-- Rebuttal class expert disclosure: October 11, 2023
-- Motion for class certification: November 1, 2023
-- Response to motion for class November 22, 2023
certification:
-- Reply to motion for class December 6, 2023
certification:
-- Hearing on class certification: December 22, 2023
-- Plaintiff's Position
The Plaintiffs seek statutory damages for each violation of
the
TCPA of behalf of themselves and the putative classes.
-- Defendant's Position
The Defendant denies that Plaintiffs or alleged class members
are
entitled to any relief and reserves the right to seek costs
should Defendant prevail and any other relief the Court deems
appropriate.
-- Settlement and ADR
The parties are unsure at this time whether settlement is
likely,
but agree to work together in good faith to achieve
settlement,
if possible.
Insurance Supermarket is a financial services firm that offers a
range of consumer insurance and investment services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UwVytE at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com KAUFMAN P.A.
The Defendant is represented by:
Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
Robert Yang (State Bar No. 312964)
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Fl
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com
Rob.Yang@jacksonlewis.com
INTRUSION INC: Class Action Settlement, Allocation Plan Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intrusion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Texas approved the allocation
plan and class action settlement of the parties in the consolidated
Celeste and Neely class suit on March 22, 2023.
On April 16, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division,
captioned Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00307
(E.D. Tex.) against the Company, its now-former chief financial
officer, and now-former chief executive officer alleging, among
other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements or omissions about our business, operations, and
prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The Celeste lawsuit claimed compensatory damages and legal fees.
On May 14, 2021, a related class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Division, captioned Neely v. Intrusion Inc., et al., Case No.
4:12-cv-00374 (E.D. Tex.) against the Company, its now-former chief
financial officer, and now-former chief executive officer.
The Neely lawsuit alleged the same violations under the federal
securities laws as those alleged in the Celeste lawsuit.
The Neely lawsuit also sought compensatory damages and legal fees.
On November 23, 2021, the Court consolidated the Celeste and Neely
actions, and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s
counsel.
The lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February 7, 2022.
The amended complaint named the following additional parties as
named defendants:
Mr. Michael Paxton, a former director and executive officer; Mr.
Gary Davis, a former officer; Mr. Joe Head, the current chief
technology officer, and a former director; and Mr. James Gero, a
current director and chair of the compensation committee.
The parties to the consolidated class action held a mediation on
April 5, 2022, at the conclusion of which the parties executed a
settlement term sheet setting forth the material terms associated
with the resolution of the action, subject to the preparation of
formal documents and a plan of distribution approved by the Court.
The settlement agreement was subject to certain terms and
conditions and received final approval by the Court on December 16,
2022.
At that time, a final judgement was entered dismissing the case,
with the Court retaining jurisdiction over the action for purposes
of enforcing the terms of the class settlement agreement. The $3.3
million settlement was paid by the insurance provider under the
insurance policy as the retention had previously been exhausted.
The lead plaintiff in the class action filed a motion for
distribution of settlement funds on February 21, 2023.
The Court approved the parties' class action settlement and plan of
allocation on March 22, 2023, and cancelled the
previously-rescheduled March 31, 2023, hearing on the motion for
distribution, all remaining matters in the class action
then-pending have been fully and finally adjudicated.
Intrusion, Inc. is a computer systems design services company
based
in Texas. [BN]
JACK IN THE BOX: Court Reduces WBF Class Penalty Wages by $1.9K
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, NICOLE
GESSELE, TRICIA TETRAULT, and CHRISTINA MAULDIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JACK IN
THE BOX, INC., a corporation of Delaware, Defendant, Case No.
3:14-CV-01092-HZ (D. Or.), Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon grants the Defendant's
Motion to Correct Verdict; denies the Defendant's Motion to Reduce
Excessive Damage Awards; and denies the Defendant's Motion to Limit
Prejudgment Interest.
Defendant Jack In The Box, Inc., moves to correct the verdict
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a) or (b) regarding
any penalty wages awarded for Jason Diaz and for shoe deductions to
the named Plaintiffs. The Defendant asserts there is no basis for
any penalty wages attributable to Diaz to be part of the verdict
because he settled his claims and is not a class member. The
Defendant also asserts there no basis for the named Plaintiffs to
be awarded penalty wages arising out of shoe deductions because the
jury found that all named Plaintiffs authorized the shoe deductions
in writing and, therefore, the shoe deductions did not violate the
law.
The Plaintiffs agree that counsel inadvertently showed the jury a
document that included Workers Benefit Fund Class penalty wages for
Diaz and asked the jury to award an amount that included those
penalty wages for Diaz. The Plaintiffs concede Diaz settled this
matter and the amount of Workers Benefit Fund (WBF) penalty wages
should not have included penalty wages for Diaz. Accordingly, the
Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Correct Verdict to the
extent that the Court reduces the award of WBF class minimum-wage
penalty wages by $1,908 to $2,690,544.
The Court notes that "the jury found that there were no improper
shoe deductions and, therefore, to the extent that their factual
findings regarding penalty wages for minimum wage, overtime, or
late pay violations included penalty wages for violations arising
out of improper shoe deductions, they are inconsistent with the
evidence and the general Verdict." The Court, therefore, grants the
Defendant's Motion to Correct the Verdict pursuant to Rule 49(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and amends the Verdict to
conform the jury's answers regarding penalty wages to its answer to
the special interrogatories. Accordingly, the Court amends the
Verdict to award named Plaintiffs' $11,501 in penalty wages for
violations caused by WBF over-withholding.
In addition, the Defendant requests the Court reduce the penalty
wages awarded to the WBF class on the basis that the penalty-wage
amount violates constitutional due process because it is "so severe
and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionate to the offense and
obviously unreasonable."
Ultimately the jury found that WBF class members established that
the Defendant's over-withholding of WBF benefits caused class
members not to be paid minimum wages or sufficient overtime or not
to receive all of the wages due in their final paycheck.
The Court points out that "Oregon's wage-and-hour laws are based on
strong public policies to protect the full and timely payment of
wages, to protect wage earners from employers who might use their
positions of economic superiority to hinder the payment of such
wages, and to remediate inequities arising from that power
disparity. The public policies underlying Oregon's wage-and-hour
laws are of fundamental importance to individual employees and to
the public welfare because the delay or nonpayment of wages results
in deprivation of the necessities of life, including the inability
to meet just obligations to others. The Court, therefore, finds
this factor does not favor reducing the penalty-wage award.
The Court finds that this case does not present the "most egregious
of circumstances" in which the Court should "disregard the plain
statutory language directing damages and allowing class action and
other aggregation." The Court, therefore, concludes that the
penalty-wage award is not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly
disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable -- the
penalty-wage award does not violate due process."
Finally, the Defendant requests the Court to toll prejudgment
interest for a total of three years and four months on the basis
that Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed this action.
The Court points out to the language of Section 82.010 of the
Oregon Revised Statute, which is clear and unambiguous:
"prejudgment interest at the rate set out in that statute is
required to be paid on all funds after they are determined to have
been owed to the creditor." The jury determined all funds for the
WBF claims became due on Oct. 31, 2011, and the parties determined
by stipulation that all other funds became due that same day. The
Court is not free to ignore the clear language of Section
82.010(1)(a) or to create exceptions to the rule set out clearly
therein.
The Court also finds that tolling prejudgment interest would not
pursue the intent of the legislature to compensate creditors for
the deprivation of the use of money to which debtors were not
entitled. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Limit
Prejudgment Interest.
A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order dated March 30, 2023, is
available https://tinyurl.com/4a7fyxez from Leagle.com.
JACKSON HEWITT: Suit Seeks Certification of Plaintiff Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA ROBINSON, STACEY
JENNINGS, and PRISCILLA MCGOWAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. JACKSON HEWITT INC. and TAX SERVICES
OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-09066-EP-ESK (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on May 15, 2023, to enter an order
granting certification of a plaintiff class.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L3SHVP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
- and -
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason Lindner, Esq.
Fatima G. Brizuela, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
brizuela@hartleyllp.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
Brian Hogan, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON &
MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
bhogan@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Bradley King, Esq.
Henry Kelston, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
1016 Palm Ave
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com
hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
PAUL LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 984-8100
E-mail: rick@Paulllp.com
laura@Paulllp.com
JAMES KOUTOULAS: M.D. Florida Narrows De Ford's Recovery Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ERIC DE FORD and SANDRA BADER, Plaintiffs
v. JAMES KOUTOULAS, JEFFREY CARTER, ERIK NORDEN, BRANDON BROWN,
BRANDONBILT MOTORSPORTS, LLC, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STOCK CAR
AUTO RACING, LLC, ARIS GEORGE MICHALOPOULOS, THOMAS MCLAUGHLIN,
CORAL CAPITAL LLC, CORAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC and CORAL DEFI LP,
Defendants, Case No: 6:22-cv-652-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Judge Paul G.
Byron of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida:
(1) grants the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Erik
Norden, Thomas McLaughlin, Coral Capital LLC, Coral
Capital Management LLC, and Coral Defi LP; and
(2) grants in part the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants
National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC and
James Koutoulas.
The putative class action stems from the creation, marketing, and
sale of LBGCoin -- a cryptocurrency. The Plaintiffs filed this
putative class action to seek to recover their and the potential
class' losses. The Second Amended Complaint alleges eight counts
for relief against more than ten Defendants.
As to Count I, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege
what Defendant NASCAR intended or hoped to gain by inducing the
Plaintiffs' reliance on these statements. Regardless, the Court
agrees with the Plaintiffs that this failure does not yet warrant
dismissal with prejudice, and Plaintiffs should have one more
opportunity to replead and remedy these errors.
Count II provides that instead of NASCAR making false statements
that LGBCoin.io would be able to sponsor Defendants Brandon and BMS
by including the company's logo and branding on his car, that
instead Defendant Koutoulas made such false representations after
NASCAR expressly disclaimed the sponsorship. The Plaintiffs further
allege that due to Defendant Koutoulas status as an investment
professional with legal training, he knew the promotional
activities and specific statements made were misleading and
improperly inducing retail investors such as the Plaintiffs to
purchase LGBCoins in a way that ended up causing them harm. The
Court disagrees with Plaintiffs, however, that statements made by
other Defendants, even Defendant LGBCoin.io, cannot satisfy
Plaintiffs' burden with respect to alleging its claims with
particularity against Defendant Koutoulas.
Count III is closer to the mark than Count I. This time, the
Defendant NASCAR speaker is expressly identified: Defendant NASCAR
employee Dale Howell communicated preliminary approval of the
sponsorship of Defendant Brandon in a Dec. 26, 2021 email to an
agent of Defendant LGBCoin.io. The Court agrees with Defendant
NASCAR, though, that this still isn't enough to meet the
specificity pleading requirement. Furthermore, the pleadings and
the Plaintiffs' response still do not adequately clarify how this
statement was intended by Defendant NASCAR to induce the reliance
of the Plaintiffs, not representatives of Defendant LGBCoin.io.
Count IV: Civil Conspiracy Claim, while the Second Amended
Complaint contains loose allegations pertaining to other Defendants
as to alleged conspiratorial agreements, the Court finds that none
of those allegations apply to Defendant Norden; at most he
plausibly appeared to be a spokesperson enthusiastically in favor
of LGBCoin based on the well-pled allegations, not a fraudster
trying to pull one over on purchasers like Plaintiffs. With
Defendant Koutoulas' conduct just as consistent with parallel
conduct and accompanied only by general allegations of conspiracy,
the Court must dismiss the claims against him. Because the
Plaintiffs may be able to remedy this deficiency, the Court will,
however, give leave to replead.
Count V: Unjust Enrichment Claim -- (a) Plaintiffs' allegations
that Defendant Koutoulas voluntarily accepted and retained this
benefit to their detriment is sufficiently supported by the
entirety of the pleadings to make them at least plausible -- the
claim survives the Koutoulas Motion; (b) while there is an
allegation that states Defendant Norden was "an LGBCoin holder" and
that he "directed and/or authorized, directly or indirectly, the
sale and/or solicitations of LGBCoin to the public," this
boilerplate assertion is entirely conclusory without any more to
accompany it -- Count V against Defendant Norden is due to be
dismissed with prejudice.
Count VI: Federal Securities Fraud, the Court holds that the
"LGBCoin qualifies as a security at this juncture under Section
2(a)(1) of the Securities Act." The Court finds that "Defendant
Koutloulas' extensively documented alleged promotion of LGBCoin
in-person or online in videos, on social media, and on podcasts are
thus enough to make him a seller. Moreover, Defendant Koutoulas is
plausibly alleged to have made these solicitations to serve his own
financial interests. . . In contrast, no allegations show Defendant
Norden received value or made these solicitations to serve his own
financially despite allegations he promoted LGBCoin and thought it
was, in total, worth several hundred million dollars in market
capitalization. Thus, even when these sparse promotional
allegations specifically mentioning Defendant Norden are included
and all reasonable inferences are drawn in Plaintiffs' favor,
Defendant Norden defeats this claim."
Count VII: Defendants Koutoulas and Norden's fraudulent
participation in the January 28 relaunch. The Court finds no
similar statements are ever alleged with specificity against
Defendant Norden in 2022, and Defendant Koutoulas does not make any
alleged statements with respect to the relaunch of LGBCoin until at
least February of 2022 -- too late to affect the purchase on Jan.
28, 2022. As such, Count VII should be dismissed with prejudice as
to Defendants Norden and Koutoulas.
Count VIII: Conversion -- Defendant Koutoulas explains that the
"airdrop" of the new LGBCoin alleged on Jan. 28, 2022, and on which
the conversion claim is based, never divested the Plaintiffs of
their original LGBCoins -- the Plaintiffs still have access to them
in whatever wallet they were originally stored. This assertion is
supported by the Second Amended Complaint itself, which states that
"according to the Ethereum blockchain, [the wallet in question]
continues to hold those LGBcoins as of the filing of this amended
complaint." If the Plaintiffs continue to hold the original
LGBCoins, they have never been divested of their property. As such,
Count VIII is due to be dismissed.
Finally, the Court stresses that the Coral Defendants and the
Plaintiffs are not residents of Florida and thus, that no harm or
loss to the Plaintiffs is alleged to have occurred in Florida.
While most of the specific allegations against the Coral Defendants
involve the sale or transfer of LGBCoin on the blockchain, the
Court finds that none of these online transactions allegedly caused
harm to or touched in any way parties specifically in Florida.
Accordingly, the Court grants Coral Defendants' motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Order dated March 30, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/h9964mhd from Leagle.com.
KANSAS, MO: Faces Suit Over Tenants' Abysmal Living Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Vickers at KCTV reports that a group of tenants is taking
legal action against what they consider unlivable conditions at a
Kansas City, Missouri, housing complex.
The Heartland Center for Jobs and Freedom filed a class action
lawsuit with several current and former tenants of the Stonegate
Meadows Apartments in eastern KC.
The lawsuit claims the owners and managers of Stonegate have
neglected the property for years, leading to abysmal living
conditions for its tenants. The suit outlines instances of roach
and rodent infestations, plumbing issues, a ceiling collapse and
other frustrating issues.
The suit seeks to force Stonegate to make necessary improvements to
the property. Residents are also seeking damages for violations of
their tenant rights.
John Bonacorsi, an attorney for Heartland Center for Jobs and
Freedom, said Stonegate has long ignored tenant concerns about
living conditions at the complex.
"Stonegate is supposed to provide affordable housing," Bonacorsi
said. "They receive federal tax credits to do so. But, they're not
investing it back into the property."
Michelle Williams and Roosevelt Price, two of the suit's
plaintiffs, lived at Stonegate for six years. They said they were
moved twice because of issues with plumbing leaks, mold, sewage
backups and other issues. At one point, their entire ceiling
collapsed inside their apartment.
"When the ceiling collapsed, all the water was flowing through into
the electric circuits and we just couldn't live there," Price
said.
Price and Williams eventually found other housing that accepted
their Section 8 voucher. But, they are hoping other current and
former tenants will come forward to share their own stories.
"I just want people to speak up. There's a lot more people going
through what we went through," Williams said.
Stonegate management could not be reached for comment for this
story. [GN]
KBK NO. 11: Agrees to Settle Defective Windows Suit for $6-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Lee-Young of Vancouver Sun reports that a settlement has
been reached in a class-action lawsuit that alleged fogging,
shattering, and cracking defects in the glass windows of downtown
Vancouver's Shangri-La residential condo tower.
The more than $6-million settlement, which is still pending final
approval in B.C. Supreme Court next week, would compensate original
and early presale buyers at one of Vancouver's tallest towers with
some of the city's most expensive condos.
The agreement covers purchasers of pre-sale units who bought from
the developer and buyers who took over a presale contract with the
developer's consent, both ahead of construction, which started in
2005 and was completed in 2009.
The settlement covers former owners, but not current ones if they
bought units after that period. They face the cost of repairs and
future special assessments as the two stratas — one for units on
floors 16 to 43, and the other for those on floors from 44 to 62
— grapple with the complicated, window-related issues.
In 2021, leaked strata minutes gave a hint of discussions to
reconstruct a curtain wall and replace all window units in
increments, with initial cost estimates of $65 million.
The agreement, released in mid-March, allows two other pending
legal actions by the two stratas that represent owners in the
building to be underway again. The next hearing date for these is
on April 24.
The defendants include the legal owner of the land, KBK No. 11
Ventures Ltd., the developer, 1100 Georgia Partnership and its
partners, which includes companies related to local groups such as
the Peterson Group and Westbank Corp.
These trials, which seek to recover costs under warranty from
insurers and from developers, builders, architects and contractors,
had been scheduled to start in October 2022 and take 130 days, but
had been adjourned as the application for the class-action suit was
being approved.
The lead plaintiff in the class-action, who owns and lives in a
unit on one of the highest floors, first filed a notice of civil
claim in December 2015.
If the settlement is approved, a total of $6.64 million will be
paid after deducting for legal fees and administration costs. Cash
payments will be divided among owners covered by the class-action
depending on the size of their condo units, with the smallest
estimate at about $8,870 and the largest at over $87,000. In
exchange, members of the class-action would give up the right to
sue for any financial and property loss, including drops in market
value, loss of rental income, and costs to repair individual units
and common property.
"When you have building defects, get advice early on," said Tony
Gioventu, executive-director of the Condominium Homeowners
Association. It is seeing glass defects as a growing problem and
has been working to track newer cases and their causes.
In recent months, residents at a North Vancouver condo building
have been dealing with large glass balcony patio panels that have
shattered and fallen from the 15th and ninth floors of The Hunter,
a relatively new building in Lynn Creek built by Intergulf
Development Group.
"Don't ignore chronic defects, as the cost will compound as time
moves on, and authorize actions in the courts to compel the parties
to the negotiating table," advised Gioventu to owners. "If the
building is still under warranty, hire a professional to evaluate
the defect, formally report it, and file claims with the developer
and the warranty provider. Even after the warranty has expired,
there may be still grounds for an application to the courts. Don't
delay." [GN]
KHOSROW SADEGHIAN: Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILLY MARQUIS, et al., v.
KHOSROW SADEGHIAN and AMY JO SADEGHIAN, Case No. 4:19-cv-00626-KPJ
(E.D. Tex.), Hon. Judge Kimberly Priest Johnson entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary
judgment.
-- The motion is granted as to Plaintiffs' Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (DTPA) claim, denied as to the Plaintiffs' Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim and Billy Marquis's
negligence
claim, and denied as moot as to the Plaintiffs' purported
spoliation claim.
In response to the Defendants' statute of limitations argument, the
Plaintiffs simply assert that the "Defendants did not plead the
statute of limitations to the DTPA action." Indeed, the Defendants
did not plead this affirmative defense as to the Plaintiffs' DTPA
claim. However, the Plaintiffs do not argue that the Defendants'
raising the defense for the first time in the Motion prejudiced the
Plaintiffs' ability to respond to the defense.
The Court does not see any reason why Plaintiffs would be
prejudiced by the fact that this defense was raised for the first
time in the Motion. The question of when the allegedly deceptive
conduct occurred is not in dispute, and the Motion was filed over
five months before the final pretrial conference was scheduled to
take place. Therefore, the Court finds this defense was not waived.
Because the statute of limitations ran on the Plaintiffs' DTPA
claim prior to their commencing this the lawsuit, and because the
Defendants did not waive the defense, the Motion is granted as to
the Plaintiffs' DTPA cause of action.
The lawsuit stems from the Defendants' alleged employment of the
Plaintiffs. In their third amended complaint, the Plaintiffs assert
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and Billy Marquis
asserts a negligence claim, against the Defendants.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41AEiWH at no extra charge.[CC]
LAMOILLE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patients' Unprotected Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Lamoille
Health Partners Inc. must face a proposed class action alleging it
negligently failed to protect the personal information of 60,000
people that was exposed in a data breach.
Lamoille Health wasn't entitled to immunity from suit under the
Public Health Service Act because the lawsuit's data breach
allegations weren't interwoven with the provision of medical care,
a requirement for immunity under the act, Judge William K. Sessions
III of the US District Court for the District of Vermont said.
Sessions rejected Lamoille Health's motion to dismiss. [GN]
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Seeks to Move Class Cert Response Date to May 5
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA ISAACS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LANDMARK RECOVERY
OF LOUISVILLE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00210 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an additional
time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification.
-- Landmark Recovery seeks to move its response deadline to May
5,
2023.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). In addition to asserting these claims on behalf of
himself, Plaintiff also seeks to certify a nationwide collective
action.
The Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on March 9, 2023. On
March 22, 2023, counsel for Landmark Recovery agreed to accept
service of
process.
At present, the case management conference in this case is also set
for May 22, 2023. Under Local Rule 7.1, at present Defendant’s
deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion to certify a nationwide
class is due April 14, 2023, five weeks before its answer deadline.
Landmark Recovery moves to extend its deadline to respond to
Plaintiff's motion to May 5, 2023.
A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated April 10, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MPaIse at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan O. Harris, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
611 Commerce Street, Suite 2803
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 565-1665
E-mail: jonathan.harris@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
1550 Old Henderson Rd
Suite No. 126
Columbus, OH 43220
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
Philips Plaza, Esq.
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
LATAM AIRLINES: Faces Consumer Suit in Chilean Court
----------------------------------------------------
LATAM Airlines Group S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 10, 2023, that on June 25, 2020, the
National Corporation of Consumers and Users (CONADECUS) filed a
class action against LATAM Airlines Group S.A. in a Chilean court,
for alleged breaches of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights
due to flight cancellations caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic,
requesting the nullity of possible abusive clauses, the imposition
of fines and compensation for damages in defense of the collective
interest of consumers.
In July 4, 2020, the company filed a motion for reversal against
the ruling that declared the action filed by CONADECUS admissible,
a decision is pending to date. On July 11, 2020, the company
requested the court to comply with the suspension of this case,
ruled by the Chile Insolvency court, in recognition of the foreign
reorganization procedure pursuant to the Chilean Insolvency Act,
for the entire period that said proceeding lasts, a request that
was accepted by the court.
CONADECUS filed a motion for reconsideration and an appeal against
this resolution should the motion for reconsideration be dismissed.
The Chile Insolvency court dismissed the reconsideration motion on
August 3, 2020, but admitted the appeal. The appeal is currently
pending before the Santiago court of Appeals.
On December 22, 2022, LATAM filed a motion requesting the stay to
be lifted, given the current state of the reorganization procedure.
In December 30, 2022, CONADECUS agreed to LATAM's request and in
January 23, 2023, the Santiago court of Appeals granted LATAM's
motion and lifted the stay. Notwithstanding its decision on the
stay, the Santiago court of Appeals still wants to hear oral
arguments on the case, scheduling a hearing for March 1, 2023. The
amount at the moment is undetermined.
Parallel to the lawsuit in Chile, on August 31, 2020, CONADECUS
filed on appeal with the Bankruptcy court because of the automatic
suspension imposed by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code that,
among other things, prohibits the parties from filing or continuing
with claims that involve a preliminary petition against the
Borrowers.
CONADECUS petitioned (i) for a stay of the automatic suspension to
the extent necessary to continue with the class action against
LATAM in Chile and (ii) for a joint hearing by the Bankruptcy court
and the Chile Insolvency court to hear the matters relating to the
claims of CONADECUS in Chile. On September 16, 2020, the Borrowers
filed their objection against CONADECUS' appeal and the Official
Unsecured Creditors Committee presented a statement in support of
the Borrowers' position.
On December 18, 2020, the Bankruptcy court partially granted
CONADECUS's request, only in the sense of allowing them to continue
with their appeal against the resolution of the 23rd Civil court
and only for the purposes that the court of Appeals determine
whether or not the suspension is appropriate under the Chilean
Insolvency Act.
In February 9, 2021, the Bankruptcy court entered an order to lift
the automatic stay to permit the continuation of CONADECUS' appeal
in Chile against the judicial approval of a class action settlement
with the Chilean Association of Consumers and Users (AGRECU).
LATAM Airlines Group S.A. is an airline holding company based in
Chile.
LAURIE, MO: Whitworth Sues Over Alleged Civil Rights' Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Whitworth, on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. City of Laurie, Missouri, and Nick
Shoemate, Laurie Police Department Officer DSN #330, individually
and in his official capacity as a police officer for the City of
Laurie, Missouri, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04080-WJE (W.D. Mo.,
April 10, 2023) is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff
challenging the policy and custom of the City of Laurie, Missouri,
of allowing police officers to pull over, detain, and cite
individuals, including Plaintiff, who are perceived as having
communicated to oncoming traffic that a police or a speed trap is
ahead by flashing their headlamps and then prosecuting and imposing
fines upon these individuals.
According to the complaint, the policy and/or custom includes
citing and prosecuting individuals for violation of an ordinance
that no reasonable officer would believe the individuals had
violated, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe
they had violated any law, and in retaliation for the individuals
having engaged in expressive conduct protected by the First
Amendment.
In this action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
Plaintiff seeks damages on her individual claims. In addition, she
seeks declaratory and prospective relief on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals.
City of Laurie is a municipal corporate and political subdivision
of the State of Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paige Sparks, Esq.
Samantha J. Sparks, Esq.
SPARKS LAW FIRM
2025 Zumbehl Road, #102
St. Charles, MO 63303
Telephone: (636) 373-9375
Facsimile: (314) 451-2567
E-mail: paige@sparks-legal.com
sam@sparks-legal.com
LENOVO INC: Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval in Gisairo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gisairo, et al., v. Lenovo
(United States) Inc., Case No. 0:19-cv-02727-WMW-LIB (D. Minn.),
Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.
-- Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied
in
the Agreement, and finds, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(i),
Fed.
R. Civ. P., that it likely will be able to grant final
approval
of the Settlement as being fair, reasonable and adequate to
the
Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
subject to further consideration at the Settlement Hearing.
-- Settlement Hearing
The Court will hold a hearing (Settlement Hearing) in
Courtroom
7A of the St. Paul Courthouse on September 12, 2023, at 1:00
PM.
Any person or entity that does not elect to be excluded from
the
Settlement Class may, but need not, enter an appearance
through
his or her or its own attorney.
-- Beginning no later than fourteen days after the filing of this
Order, Lenovo shall cause to be disseminated the Notices,
substantially in the form attached as the Exhibits to the
Agreement, in the manner set forth in the Agreement.
-- CAFA Notice
As provided in the Agreement, Lenovo shall serve the notice
required under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Lenovo is
solely responsible for the costs of the CAFA notice and
administering the CAFA notice.
Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43GyLzM at no extra charge.[CC]
LIPOCINE INC: Faces Abady Shareholder Suit in Utah Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Lipocine Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 10, 2023, that on November 14, 2019, the
company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a
purported shareholder class action lawsuit, "Solomon Abady v.
Lipocine Inc. et al.," 2:19-cv-00906-PMW, filed in the United
District court for the District of Utah.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the company's
filing of the non-disclosure agreement for the oral testosterone
undecanoate capsule, "TLANDO" to the FDA contained deficiencies and
as a result the defendants' statements about its business and
operations were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis in violation of federal securities laws.
The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief.
The company filed a motion to dismiss this class action lawsuit on
July 24, 2020. In response, the plaintiffs filed their response to
the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on September 22,
2020, and the company filed its reply to the motion to dismiss on
October 22, 2020. A hearing on the motion to dismiss occurred on
January 12, 2022, and there has been no update on the motion to
dismiss since the hearing occurred.
Lipocine Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in Utah.
LUTHER BURBANK CORP: Faces O'dell Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Luther Burbank Corporation disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2023, that
the Company faces the O'dell class suit in the Superior Court for
the County of Sonoma, California.
A Luther Burbank shareholders has filed similar action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended in matters captioned O'Dell v. Luther Burbank Corporation,
et al. (Civil Action No. 23-cv-1912).
Neither plaintiff has taken any action to serve these actions or
otherwise prosecute their claims.
Luther Burbank believes the complaint is without merit, that the
disclosures made to date, including in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus, are materially truthful and do not omit any
material information.
Luther Burbank Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered
in Santa Rosa, California. LBC operates primarily through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Luther Burbank Savings, a California
banking corporation.
LUTHER BURBANK CORP: Faces Siegel Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Luther Burbank Corporation disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that on March 24, 2023,
Martin Siegel, a purported Luther Burbank shareholder, filed and
served a putative class action on behalf of Luther Burbank's
shareholders in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma,
California captioned Siegel v. Lagomarsino, et al. (Case No.
SCV-272922).
The Siegel complaint alleges that Luther Burbank's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duty by failing to disclose
certain internal projections and other information allegedly
underlying the fairness opinion of Luther Burbank's financial
adviser, Piper Sandler. Mr. Siegel has served the complaint on the
defendants, and indicated an intention to seek a preliminary
injunction, requiring Luther Burbank to disclose the internal
projections and other information and delaying Luther Burbank's May
4, 2023 shareholders meeting until such disclosures are made.
Neither plaintiff has taken any action to serve these actions or
otherwise prosecute their claims.
Luther Burbank believes the Siegel complaint and the other
complaints are without merit, that the disclosures made to date,
including in the joint proxy statement/prospectus, are materially
truthful and do not omit any material information.
Luther Burbank Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered
in Santa Rosa, California. LBC operates primarily through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Luther Burbank Savings, a California
banking corporation.
LUTHER BURBANK CORP: Faces Wang Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Luther Burbank Corporation disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 10, 2023, that
the Company faces the Wang class suit in the Superior Court for the
County of Sonoma, California.
A Luther Burbank shareholders has filed similar action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended in matters captioned Wang v. Luther Burbank Corporation, et
al. (Civil Action No. 23-cv-01949). Neither plaintiff has taken any
action to serve these actions or otherwise prosecute their claims.
Luther Burbank believes the complaint is without merit, that the
disclosures made to date, including in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus, are materially truthful and do not omit any
material information.
In particular, Luther Burbank does not believe the additional
disclosures sought by the plaintiffs to be material or required.
Luther Burbank Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered
in Santa Rosa, California. LBC operates primarily through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Luther Burbank Savings, a California
banking corporation.
MATERION BRUSH: Class Settlement in Lucyk Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garett Lucyk, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v.
Materion Brush Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02340-JJH (N.D.
Ohio), Hon. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick entered an order granting
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement,
appointment of class representative and class counsel, and
certification of settlement class as follows:
-- For settlement purposes only and for no other purpose and
with
no other effect on this litigation, this Court certifies that
the Settlement Class Members meet the requirements for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
(b)(3).
-- After consideration of the factors set forth in Rule 23(e),
this
Court finds that, for purposes of preliminary approval, the
proposed Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and
adequate resolution of disputed claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio wage and hour laws.
-- The Court finds the Settlement Agreement is the result of
good
faith, arms-length negotiations conducted after counsel for
both
sides were able to reasonably evaluate their respective
positions.
-- The Court appoints Plaintiff Garett Lucyk as Class
Representative to represent the Settlement Class Members for
settlement purposes only.
-- The Court appoints Kevin J. Stoops of the law firm Sommers
Schwartz, P.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class
Members
for settlement purposes only.
-- The Court appoints Simpluris, Inc. as Settlement
Administrator
and preliminarily approves the allocated Settlement
Administration Costs.
-- The Court approves the form and substance of the Notice, as
well
as the procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement for
providing notice to potential Settlement Class Members as
valid,
due, and sufficient notice pursuant to Rule 23.
-- The preliminary approval of the Settlement and the
certification
of the Settlement Class are conditional and shall be vacated
if
the Settlement Agreement is terminated or disapproved in
whole
or in part by the Court, or any appellate court, or any other
court of review. In which event the Settlement Agreement
shall
not be offered, received, or construed as an admission or as
evidence for any purpose.
Materion produces beryllium, copper, nickel alloys.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Uv8e41 at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 3071: Court Transfers 21 Lawsuits to M.D. Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "IN RE: Realpage, Inc.,
Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II)," MDL No. 3071, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers 13 cases from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, two each from the
District of Colorado, District of Massachusetts, Western District
of Texas, and one each from the District of District of Columbia
and the Middle District of Tennessee, all to the Middle District of
Tennessee and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge
Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
These actions share factual questions arising from alleged
collusion by RealPage and numerous lessors of multifamily
residential real estate across the country to fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize lease prices. Plaintiffs allege that the lessors all
employed revenue management software provided by RealPage called AI
Revenue Management (formerly known as YieldStar), which gathered
real-time pricing and vacancy data from the lessors and made
unit-specific pricing and vacancy recommendations which the lessors
allegedly agreed to adhere to, on the understanding that competing
lessors would do the same, with the intent and effect of raising
lease prices above competitive levels. Plaintiffs allege that this
conduct violated federal antitrust law, as well as various state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes.
Many of the plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes of
lessees affected by the alleged price fixing scheme, while others
seek to represent overlapping city-specific classes. Centralization
will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, particularly as to class certification and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary, rules
the Panel.
In addition, the Panel denies the request to exclude Navarro from
the MDL. Plaintiff argued that Navarro involves a putative class of
lessees of student housing as opposed to the putative classes in
the other actions, which involve the multifamily housing market.
The Panel held that "Navarro will share substantial factual
questions with the other actions relating to defendants' alleged
price-fixing conspiracy and their use of RealPage’s software to
facilitate coordination of rental prices. Moreover, Navarro already
is being coordinated with the other related actions in the Western
District of Washington, and plaintiff himself has moved to
consolidate those cases. Navarro will proceed most efficiently as
part of this MDL."
A full-text copy of the court's April 10, 2023 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3071-Transfer_Order-3-23.pdf
MDL 3072: Court Consolidates 21 Lawsuits to E.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned "IN RE: Air Crash into
the Java Sea on January 9, 2021," MDL No. 3072, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, transfers 10 cases from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and 11 cases from the Eastern
District of Virginia, all to the Eastern District of Virginia and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Claude M. Hilton
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The actions arise from the January 9, 2021 crash of a Boeing
737-500 aircraft operated by Indonesian airline Sriwijaya Air into
the Java Sea off the coast of Indonesia, shortly after it departed
from Jakarta. The crash resulted in the deaths of all 62 passengers
and crew members, who were citizens of Indonesia.
In opposition to centralization, plaintiffs principally argue that
there are pending remand motions in 20 of the 21 actions,1 and the
question of federal subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved
before the Panel rules on centralization. They also suggest that
the Panel lacks authority to rule on motions for centralization
until the remand motions are decided.
However, the panel find the plaintiffs' arguments unpersuasive.
They also denies plaintiffs' alternative request for a stay of the
decision on centralization until the involved transferor courts
decide their remand motions. Plaintiffs will not suffer any undue
prejudice from centralization while remand motions are pending as
they can present their remand motions to the transferee court, the
panel held.
Moreover, all actions share factual questions regarding the cause
or causes of the crash of the Boeing 737-500 aircraft operated as
Sriwijaya Air Flight 182 into the Java Sea on January 9, 2021. The
actions also share significant threshold questions concerning (1)
whether admiralty or diversity jurisdiction lies over the actions
(2) whether the alleged location of significant evidence and
witnesses in Indonesia warrants dismissal under the doctrine of
forum non conveniens, as asserted by defendant Boeing and (3)
whether plaintiffs’ claims require the joinder of allegedly
necessary parties such as Sriwijaya Air. The panel determined that
centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, particularly
with respect to potential international discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
Competing plaintiffs' counsels are seeking damages on behalf of
some of the same decedents in both districts mentioned and Boeing
identifies five other actions involving overlapping decedents.
Centralizing all actions before a single court will ensure
consistent proceedings with respect to the claims pertaining to
decedents involved in multiple actions, adds the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's April 7, 2023 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3072-Transfer_Order-3-23.pdf
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston said that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the securities of Medical Properties Trust, Inc.
("MPT" or the "Company") (NYSE: MPW) between March 1, 2022 and
February 22, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
MPT operates as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") that leases
its facilities under long-term leases to providers of healthcare
services, such as operators of general acute care hospitals,
behavioral health facilities, inpatient physical rehabilitation
facilities, long-term acute care hospitals, and freestanding
ER/urgent care facilities.
Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. ("Prospect") leases and operates
thirteen (13) of MPT's facilities. As of December 31, 2021,
Prospect was MPT's third largest tenant, representing 7.3% of its
total assets. As a tenant, Prospect is required to pay all ongoing
operating expenses of the facility and for any desired
expenditures.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
Prospect was facing significant pressures affecting the
profitability of its Pennsylvania properties; (2) as a result,
there was a significant risk that Prospect would be unable to meet
its rental obligations owed to MPT; and (3) "given the elongated
timing of the Pennsylvania recovery," MPT was reasonably likely to
record an impairment charge to the real estate value of the
Pennsylvania properties.
On February 23, 2023, MPT issued a press release reporting its
fourth quarter and full year 2022 financial results. MPT disclosed
an impairment of about $171 million on four properties leased to
Prospect as well as a write off of about $112 million in unbilled
rent for the same client.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of MPT should
contact the Firm prior to the June 12, 2023 lead plaintiff motion
deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Submission of Settlement Claim Form Until August 25
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Jones of KVUE reports that the deadline to submit a claim form
is Aug. 25, 2023 in the Facebook user data privacy class-action
settlement.
In April, several VERIFY viewers, including Rachel and Hannah, said
they received a notification on Facebook that claimed they may be
entitled to payment from the settlement of a data privacy lawsuit.
The notification linked to facebookuserprivacysettlement.com. They
asked if the website and settlement are real.
Facebook has sent some users notifications from within the platform
alerting them to a class-action lawsuit involving the company, a
Meta spokesperson told VERIFY. The notifications redirect to the
website facebookuserprivacysettlement.com, which is a real website
that pertains to the company's involvement in the Cambridge
Analytica data privacy scandal.
According to the settlement website, a group of current and former
Facebook users filed numerous lawsuits against Facebook, now known
as Meta Platforms, Inc. or Meta, claiming the company shared
private user data with data mining firm Cambridge Analytica and
other third parties without their permission. They also claim
Facebook did not sufficiently monitor and enforce its rules on
third parties who had access to user data.
In 2018, Facebook said that Cambridge Analytica gathered details on
as many as 87 million Facebook users. That data is alleged to have
been used to manipulate the 2016 presidential election.
Meta, which denies any liability or wrongdoing, agreed in December
2022 to pay $725 million to resolve these claims outside of court.
On March 29, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved the settlement.
If you used Facebook between May 24, 2007, and Dec. 22, 2022, you
may be eligible to receive a cash payment from the settlement
associated with the class-action lawsuit. If you are eligible, you
can submit a claim form online or print and mail a completed form
to the settlement administrator. The deadline to submit a claim
form is Aug. 25, 2023. Find out more information at
facebookuserprivacysettlement.com.
It is unclear at this time how much money each claimant will
receive from the settlement. According to the settlement website,
the final payment amount will depend on how many eligible
individuals submit valid claims and how long each person used
Facebook between May 24, 2007, and Dec. 22, 2022.
If you are not sure whether you are eligible for payment, you can
ask for free help by emailing the settlement administrator at
info@FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com or by calling the settlement
administrator at 1-855-556-2233. You may also view the settlement
agreement.
Settlement payments will be distributed after the court grants
final approval of the settlement and after any appeals are
resolved. A final approval hearing for the settlement of this case
has been scheduled for Sept. 7, 2023. [GN]
METROPOLITAN BANK: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Metropolitan Bank Holding Corp. (NYSE: MCB), the
holding company for Metropolitan Commercial Bank, resulting from
allegations that MCB may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased MCB securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=14239 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 30, 2023, market analyst Vidar
Research published a report entitled "Metropolitan Commercial Bank
is a mixed bag of problems[.]" The report alleged that
"[Metropolitan Commercial Bank] is bleeding deposits[,]" stated
that Metropolitan Commercial Bank "is the issuer of choice for
prepaid debit cards of crypto firms[,]" questioned whether
Metropolitan Commercial Bank was actually moving away from
cryptocurrency (as it had allegedly announced), and alleged that
its balance sheet "is shocking comparable to the failed Signature
Bank (SBNY)[.]" In summary, the report alleged that Metropolitan
Commercial Bank "is a failed bank and that it will share the fate
with the likes of SBNY [Signature Bank] and SIVB [Silicon Valley
Bank]."
On this news, MCB's stock price fell $9.66 per share, or 27.6%, to
close at $25.36 per share on March 30, 2023.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MINNESOTA: Chairse Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as O'Shea Chairse, et al., v.
Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., Case No.
0:23-cv-00355-ECT-ECW (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move the Court to
certify the following class:
"all persons who, during the relevant statute of limitations
period, have been detained in any jail or prison for more than
48 hours after having been ordered civilly committed under
circumstances described in any of the four subparagraphs of
Minn.
Stat. section 253B.10, subd. 1(b)."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40fkKWK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tim Phillips, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF TIM PHILLIPS
331 Second Avenue S, Suite 400
TriTech Center
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 470-7179
E-mail: tim@timphillipslaw.com
MOUNT NITTANY: Faces Class Action Over Patients' Unprotected Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Collegian reports that patients of Mount Nittany Medical
Center filed a class action lawsuit against Mount Nittany Health
for allegedly violating medical privacy rights of patients and
exposing "highly sensitive personal information" to third parties
without the patient's knowledge or consent, according to court
documents.
Mount Nittany allegedly disclosed information about patients,
including their status as patients, physicians, medical treatments,
hospitals they visited and personal identities to Facebook, Google
and other third parties without consent, according to court
documents.
The patient's information was displayed due to "digital marketing"
and "automatic rerouting" tools embedded on its website, according
to court documents.
The suit alleged information was "purposefully and intentionally"
given to third parties for advertising purposes.
The John and Jane Doe who filed the lawsuit charged Mount Nittany
Health with a violation of the Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act, invasion of privacy, a breach of duty of
confidentiality and unjust enrichment.
They requested Mount Nittany pay $1,000 in statutory damages for
each violation.
The suit was filed in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's Court of
Common Pleas in Centre County. [GN]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert Expert Reports Due July 31
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCFADDEN, et al., v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00166 (D.D.C.), Hon.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan entered an order setting class
certification deadlines:
-- Motion for class certification and July 31, 2023
class certification expert reports
due by:
-- Opposition to class certification and Sept. 29, 2023
class certification expert reports
due by:
-- Reply in support of class certification Nov. 3, 2023
and class certification expert reports
due by:
The nature of suit states diversity -- other contract.[CC]
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: $3.8M Class Deal in Mostajo Suit Gets Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY MARC MOSTAJO, et al., Plaintiffs v. NATIONWIDE
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00350-DAD-AC
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants Plaintiffs Anthony Marc
Mostajo and Elaine Quedens' unopposed motions for final approval of
a class action settlement and for an award of attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards.
On Oct. 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the pending unopposed motion
for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards for the
Plaintiffs, and on Nov. 1, 2022, they filed the pending unopposed
motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement.
As of the date of the hearing on Jan. 6, 2023, no objections to the
settlement had been received or filed with the court, and no class
members have opted out of the settlement.
The settlement agreement provides for a settlement payment made by
the Defendant in the amount of $3.8 million. Assuming the parties'
proposed allocations are awarded in full, approximately $2,105,000
will be available for distribution to participating class members.
Of the $2,105,000 net settlement fund, $750,000 will be allocated
to the Subclass A net settlement fund, with the remainder to be
allocated to the Subclass B net settlement fund. These net
settlement funds will be distributed to participating subclass
members on a pro rata basis based on the number of eligible
workweeks worked by subclass members. Based on the Plaintiffs'
current estimates of the net settlement funds, the average amount
Subclass A members are expected to recover is $6,198.35, and the
average Subclass B members are expected to recover is $1,111.57,
with the largest payment to any class member estimated to be
$22,746.83. The settlement is non-reversionary, and the amount of
any uncashed checks will be transmitted to the California State
Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund.
The parties' settlement provides that the class counsel will seek
an award of 25% of the settlement, equivalent to $950,000. No class
member has objected to any part of the settlement, including the
amount of attorneys' fees sought. The Court approved the
Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees on a preliminary basis but
previewed that it would conduct a cross-check of the proposed fee
award against the lodestar amount. In addition, the class counsel
requests reimbursement in the amount of $629,222.04.
On Feb. 26, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Specifically, it certified the following two
subclasses:
(1) Subclass A, which is defined as the "class of persons
employed by Nationwide as commercial lines claims adjusters in
California" from Jan. 9, 2013 through the date of preliminary
approval; and
(2) Subclass B, which is defined as "all former California
employees employed by Nationwide" from Jan. 9, 2013 through the
date of preliminary approval "who accrued vacation time for which
Nationwide did not pay them."
The Court also appointed Plaintiffs Mostajo and Quedens as the
Class Representatives, the Workman Law Firm, PC as the class
counsel, and RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC ("RG/2") as the claims
administrator. Because no additional substantive issues concerning
the certification have been raised, Judge Drozd does not repeat the
Court's prior analysis and he confirms the Court's prior
appointments for settlement purposes.
After considering all of the relevant factors, Judge Drozd finds on
balance that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Accordingly, he grants the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of
the parties' class action settlement.
Judge Drozd then concludes that the lodestar cross-check supports
the requested award of $950,000 in attorneys' fees, an amount equal
to 25% of the gross settlement fund. Therefore, he approves an
award of $950,000 in attorneys' fees.
Having reviewed the costs and expenses submitted to the Court and
finding all the charges incurred to be reasonable, Judge Drozd
approves the reimbursement of costs and expenses in the amount
requested.
Judge Drozd also finds that incentive awards of $25,000 to each of
the named Plaintiffs would be fair and reasonable and would not
destroy the adequacy of class representation in light of the unique
circumstances of the case. Accordingly, he awards $25,000 to
Mostajo and $25,000 to Quedens.
Finally, the Court has approved the appointment of RG/2 as the
settlement administrator. According to the declaration of Tina M.
Chiango, a director of claims administration for RG/2, the total
cost for administration of the settlement is anticipated to be
$15,000. Judge Drozd finds these administration costs reasonable
and directs payment in the requested amount.
For the reasons stated, Judge Drozd grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for final approval of the class action settlement and approves the
settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. He grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs,
incentive award, and settlement administrator costs. He awards the
following sums:
a. The Class Counsel will receive $950,000 in attorneys' fees
and $629,222.04 in expenses;
b. Mostajo will receive $25,000 as an incentive payment;
c. Quedens will receive $25,000 as an incentive payment;
d. RG/2 will receive $15,000 in settlement administration
costs; and
e. The parties will direct payment of 75% of the settlement
allocated to the PAGA payment, or $37,500, to the LWDA as required
by California law, and the remainder of the PAGA payment, $12,500,
will be included in the net settlement fund.
The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the settlement
agreement and any deadlines or procedures for distribution.
The action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms
of the parties' amended settlement agreement, with the Court
specifically retaining jurisdiction over the action for the purpose
of enforcing the parties' settlement agreement.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/25pw8ysb from Leagle.com.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Extends Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G. K., et al., v.
Governor, NH, State of, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00004 (D.N.H.),
Hon. Judge Paul J. Barbadoro entered an endorsed order granting
motion to extend time to respond to motion for class certification
and reply to opposition.
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
New Hampshire, a U.S. state in New England, is defined by its
quaint towns and large expanses of wilderness. In the north, White
Mountain National Forest is known for winter sports areas and Mt.
Washington, the region's highest peak, with a cog railway to its
summit.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kendra Doty, Esq.
BROWN & PEISCH PLLC
1233 20th Street NW, Suite 505 Washington DC
Telephone: (202) 499-4361
E-mail: kdoty@brownandpeisch.com
NEW YORK: Class Cert. Denied in Employment Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katelynn Gray, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Gregory Slotnick at
duanemorris.com reports that Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 12,
2023, Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied class certification in an
employment discrimination class action brought by a former Auto
Mechanic of the Fire Department of New York (FDNY). In Feeley v.
New York Fire Department, Case No. 20 Civ. 1770 (S.D.N.Y. April 12,
2023), the plaintiff sued on behalf of a class consisting of all
female employees that have or will be employed with the FDNY since
August 2007 who have the need or chose to express milk during work
hours.
On Rule 72 review, in adopting Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo's report
and recommendation in its entirety, Judge Donnelly determined that
the plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that the FDNY discriminated
against other female employees pursuant to an alleged policy or
practice of failing to provide them with reasonable work assignment
accommodations, adequate lactation locations, or notice of their
rights.
The Court opined that the plaintiff failed to meet the Rule 23
requirements of commonality and typicality, and that her attorneys
could not sufficiently provide adequate class representation. The
ruling is a blueprint for corporate counsel in terms of a solid
approach for opposing employment-related class action certification
motions.
Background
The plaintiff, an ex-FDNY Auto Mechanic claimed that, after she
returned from maternity leave in July 2018 and told a supervisor
she would need to express breast milk in the workplace, she was
first provided an unoccupied office to lactate twice a day for 30
to 45 minutes. However, according to the Complaint, beginning in
September 2018, she experienced various workplace issues
interfering with her ability to express breast milk.
First, the plaintiff asserted that the FDNY made her fill out a
form and told her she had to create a schedule in advance of when
she needed to express milk, subject to supervisor approval. She
also claimed she was forced to "parade" in front of her co-workers
while pumping in order to clock out with breast pump apparatus
still attached, had to pump from multiple locations included her
vehicle and a cubicle, and that she was not provided reasonable
work assignment accommodations conducive to her physical
limitations to ensure her legal right to pump. The former employee
also alleged that the FDNY began to closely monitor her work, and
gave her negative performance evaluations and difficult assignments
as a form of harassment and retaliation after she complained about
her treatment in the workplace.
According to Magistrate Judge Kuo's opinion, the FDNY provided
evidence it had a formal lactation policy since 2010 that
guaranteed nursing employees the right to take lactation breaks in
a clean and private space other than a bathroom and in close
proximity to their workstation, as required by law. The FDNY also
provided yearly training to its employees regarding reasonable
accommodations and its Human Resources Department provided
employees returning from childbirth with information on their right
to express breastmilk in the workplace. The FDNY further
distributed an application for employees to request reasonable
lactation-related accommodations. Between January 2010 and March
2021, 269 FDNY employees applied to express breast milk at work, 91
employees requested lactation accommodations, and all requests for
accommodation were granted. The plaintiff was the only FDNY Auto
Mechanic who requested a lactation accommodation during that time
period.
The Decision
First, Magistrate Judge Kuo found the plaintiff failed to
demonstrate commonality with respect to her allegation that the
FDNY did not provide reasonable accommodations related to work
assignments. Specifically, the Court determined that the plaintiff
did not articulate what requests for accommodations she made and in
what way they were denied. The Court held that even if the FDNY
discriminated against the employee by failing to provide her
reasonable accommodations, there was no evidence of any widespread
policy or practice that the FDNY discriminated against nursing
mothers by denying them reasonable work assignment accommodations.
The Magistrate Judge concluded that the plaintiff's description of
a single assignment she claimed was harassing (repair of a vehicle
that was soon to be condemned) failed to describe a policy or
widespread FDNY practice, and was unique to the employee.
Magistrate Judge Kuo also found the employee failed to allege any
other nursing mother at the FDNY faced similar discrimination, and
that she had actually testified she was unaware of any such
instance
The Court found the FDNY notified the employee of her lactation
rights, and indeed the employee filled out a form requesting two
specific times during the workday to express breast milk. According
to Magistrate Judge Kuo, even assuming the employee was
discriminated against because she received inadequate notification
of her rights, the plaintiff failed to show a widespread pattern or
practice of pervasive discrimination against the putative class,
that the FDNY engaged in widespread acts of intentional
discrimination, or that intentional discrimination was the FDNY's
standard operating procedure.
As to typicality, the Court held the plaintiff's claims were
specific to her and atypical of her proposed class, as she was the
only female Auto Mechanic in the Fleet Services Division. She also
failed to provide any information about other employees'
experiences in connection with her motion.
Finally, the Court took issue with the ability of Plaintiff's
counsel to adequately represent the putative class. It noted that
plaintiff's counsel had missed various deadlines and conferences in
the case. The attorneys further failed to attach affidavits or any
statistical analysis to the motion papers, which raised red flags
for the Court as to the firm's competency to represent the putative
class.
Key Takeaways for Employers
In addition to a roadmap for opposing class certification in an
employment discrimination claim, the decision is a timely reminder
for employers to ensure they have policies and practices in place
that comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations
concerning employees' right to express breast milk at work. For
example, effective June 7, 2023, for employers throughout New York
State, employees must have access to lactation rooms or spaces that
meet certain specifications. Specifically, the room must be: (i)
"in close proximity to the work area"; (ii) "well lit"; (iii)
"shielded from view"; and (iv) "free from intrusion from other
persons in the workplace or the public." Additionally, the room
must be supplied with: (i) "a chair"; (ii) "a working surface";
(iii) "nearby access to clean running water"; (iv) "an electrical
outlet," if the workplace has electricity; and (v) "refrigeration
for the purposes of storing the expressed milk," if there is access
to refrigeration in the workplace. The room may not be a restroom
or toilet stall. New York employers also will need to provide
reasonable unpaid break time or permit an employee to use paid
break time or meal time to allow an employee to express breast milk
for her nursing child each time such employee has reasonable need
to express breast milk for up to three years following child birth.
New York employers will also be required to provide the NY
Department of Labor's written policy regarding the rights of
nursing employees to express breast milk to each employee upon hire
and annually thereafter, as well as to employees returning to work
following childbirth.
At the federal level, a fairly recent Duane Morris Alert details
expanded protections for pregnant and nursing employees. The Alert
also provides suggested steps employers should take to comply with
new requirements under the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act
(enforcement effective April 28, 2023) and the Pregnant Workers
Fairness Act (effective June 27, 2023). [GN]
NEW YORK: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by April 28
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cardew et al v. New York
State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al.,
Case No. 6:21-cv-06557 (W.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Charles J. Siragusa
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- The Defendants are directed to file and their response, if
any,
to The Plaintiffs motion to certify class no later than April
28, 2023.
-- The Court will notify the parties if oral argument is deemed
necessary; otherwise, the matter will be considered as
submitted
on the papers, and the Court will issue a written decision
and
order at its earliest opportunity.
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision is the department of the New York State government that
maintains the state prisons and parole system. The New York State
prison system encompasses 44 prisons funded by the state
government.[CC]
OHIO STATE: Dehen Bid for Recusal Tossed
----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reese C. Dehen, v. The
Ohio State University, Case No. 2:23-cv-00517-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for recusal.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis,
is denied as moot.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time, is denied as
moot.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for recusal, is denied. The Clerk
shall
terminate each of these motions.
Reese Dehen sues The Ohio State University ("OSU") under various
Ohio laws for events generally arising out of her non-receipt of a
meritscholarship to attend OSU as an undergraduate student-athlete.
The Plaintiff moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Magistrate Judge Jolson issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")
on February 14, 2023, recommending that Plaintiff's motion be
denied. The R&R notified Plaintiff of her right to object to the
recommendations contained, and that a failure to timely object
would amount to a waiver of the right to de novo review by the
Court as well as a right to appeal the Court's adoption of the
R&R.
The Ohio State University, commonly called Ohio State or OSU, is a
public land-grant research university in Columbus, Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UFKMRG at no extra charge.[CC]
OLIVERI & ASSOCIATES: Maryland Homeowner Class Wins Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES AND KURU SMITH, et
al. v. OLIVERI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-02598-TJS (D. Md.), Hon. Judge Timothy J. Sullivan entered
an order preliminarily approving settlement and directing notice to
settlement class.
1. The Settlement Class is defined as:
"all Maryland homeowners against whose property Defendants
filed
Continuing Liens, and who received communications from
Defendants and/or faced legal proceedings asserting that
amounts
that became due after the recordation of such Continuing
Liens
were secured by those liens. The Settlement Class does not
include counsel of record (and their respective law firms)
for
any of the Parties, employees of Defendants, or employees of
the
Federal judiciary."
2. The Settlement Agreement entered between the parties as of
April
6, 2023.
3. The Court finds that the Settlement Class contains the owners
of
387 properties.
4. The Court finds that Named Plaintiffs James Smith, Kuru
Smith,
and Keisha Grant have and will continue to adequately
represent
the Settlement Class and hereby appoints them as class
representatives.
5. The Court finds that the attorneys for Named Plaintiffs,
Courtney Weiner of Law Office of Courtney Weiner PLLC,
Matthew
D. Skipper and Jeffrey A. Kahntroff of Skipper Law, LLC, and
Elizabeth L. Morris of Adams, Morris & Sessing, have and will
continue to adequately represent the Settlement Class and
hereby
appoints them Class Counsel.
6. The Court appoints American Legal Claim Services LLC as the
Settlement Administrator.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GLVdNK at no extra charge.[CC]
ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Farhar Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ontrak Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 17, 2023, that the Company will continue to
defend itself from the Farhar securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
On March 3, 2021, a purported securities class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, entitled Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-01987. On March 19, 2021, another similar lawsuit was filed
in the same court, entitled Yildrim v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-02460. On July 14, 2021, the Court consolidated the two
actions under the Farhar case ("Consolidated Class Action"),
appointed Ibinabo Dick as lead plaintiff, and the Rosen Law Firm as
lead counsel. On August 13, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint. In the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, lead plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Ontrak securities from August 5, 2020
through February 26, 2021, alleges that the Company and Terren S.
Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne and Curtis Medeiros, violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, by intentionally or recklessly making false
and misleading statements and omissions in various press releases,
SEC filings and conference calls with investors on August 5, 2020
and November 5, 2020. Specifically, the Consolidated Amended
Complaint alleges that the Company was inappropriately billing its
largest customer, Aetna, causing Aetna to, in May 2020, shut off
its data feed to Ontrak, and, in July 2020, require Ontrak to
complete a Corrective Action Plan ("CAP"). Lead plaintiff alleges
that defendants: (1) misrepresented to investors that the data feed
was shut off in July 2020, and that it was part of Aetna’s
standard compliance review of all of its vendors; (2) failed to
disclose to investors that Aetna had issued the CAP; and (3) failed
to disclose to investors that Ontrak was engaging in inappropriate
billing practices. Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class
and monetary damages in an indeterminate amount. On September 13,
2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4, et seq. The motion was
taken under submission, with no oral argument. Prior to any ruling
being issued on the motion to dismiss, on March 29, 2023, lead
plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended
Complaint (1) adds Jonathan Mayhew as a defendant; (2) expands the
purported class period to August 5, 2020 through August 19, 2021;
and (3) now includes allegations that the defendants additionally
intentionally or recklessly made false and misleading statements
and omissions regarding the Company’s relationship with its
then-second largest customer, Cigna, in various press releases, SEC
filings and conference calls with investors on May 6, 2021 and
August 5, 2021. Pursuant to the Court' scheduling order, the
Company's response to the Second Amended Complaint is due on or
before May 15, 2023. The Company believes that the allegations lack
merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously.
Ontrak Inc. is an AI-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized
healthcare company with a technology-enabled platform that
provides
claim based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic
insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment
programs.
OUTSOURCE UTILITY: Plagakis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outsource Utility
Contractor Corp. The case is styled as Nicholas Plagakis, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Outsource Utility
Contractor Corp., Case No. BCV-23-101120 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., April 11, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Outsource Utility Contractor Corp. -- https://outsourceucc.com/ --
is a utility contractor in Anaheim, California.[BN]
PACKAGING CORP: W.D. Michigan Narrows Claims in Miller ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Hala Y. Jarbou of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Michigan grants in part and denies in part
the motion to dismiss filed by the Packaging Corporation of
America, Inc., the Board Defendants, and the Committee Defendants
in the case captioned as HARVEY MILLER, Plaintiff v. PACKAGING
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-271 (W.D. Mich.).
Harvey Miller brings this putative class action, on behalf of
himself and others who have been participants or beneficiaries of
the Plan from March 23, 2016, to the date of judgment in this case,
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against his
former employer, Defendant Packaging Corporation of America, Inc.
Miller also sues PCA's Board of Directors and its members, Mark W.
Kowlzan, Cheryl K. Beebe, Duane Farrington, Donna A. Harman, Robert
C. Lyons, Thomas P. Maurer, Samuel M. Mencoff, Roger B. Porter,
Thomas A. Souleles, and Paul T. Stecko. In addition, Miller sues
PCA's Investment Committee and its members, Michelle Wojdyla,
Robert P. Mundy, and Pamela A. Barnes.
First, Miller alleges that the Committee Defendants allegedly
failed to ensure that the recordkeeping and administrative fees
charged by the Plan's recordkeeper, Alight Financial Solutions,
LLC, were "objectively reasonable." Because of the variation in
services provided by the different recordkeepers, the Court finds
that "it is difficult to make a fair comparison between Alight's
RKA fee and the fee charged by the recordkeepers in Miller's chart.
. . Miller does not allege facts from which to make a plausible
inference that the RKA fee charged by the other recordkeepers
covered those same services. . . ERISA does not require plan
fiduciaries to obtain competitive bids from plan service providers.
. . In short, assertions that the investment committee failed to
conduct periodic requests for proposal and to renegotiate RKA fees.
. . do not cause the Court to draw an inference that the investment
committee acted imprudently." Accordingly, the Court will dismiss
Miller's recordkeeping claim in Count 1.
Second, Miller alleges that the Committee Defendants allegedly
failed to ensure that the investment options offered by the Plan
were "prudent" options. Some of the options offered allegedly
charged managed investment fees that were excessive in comparison
to comparable funds available on the market. Here, the Court
concludes that "Miller has stated a plausible claim insofar as he
alleges that the Defendants failed to comply with their duty of
prudence in connection with the selection and monitoring of
investment options. Miller's allegations about alternative share
classes are simply additional facts to support the same claim. And
at the end of the day, the Defendants' decision-making process is
the focus of Miller's fiduciary duty claim, rather than the
particular funds the Defendants chose." Thus, the Court will not
dismiss this aspect of the claim.
Third, Miller alleges that the Defendants retained Alight's
subsidiary, Alight Financial Advisors, to provide managed account
services to participants of the Plan in exchange for an annual fee
that was higher than fees charged for similar services for
participants of "similarly situated" plans. Miller provides a list
of "similarly situated" plans and the managed account services fee
charged by those plans. But the Court finds, however, that Miller
"provides no details about those other plans to support his
assertion that they are similarly situated. He also alleges that
managed account services provided to mega plans are materially
identical, but that allegation is conclusory because it is
unsupported by any facts. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Count
3 of the complaint."
Although the complaint contains six separate counts, the first
three counts are based on essentially the same facts as the last
three counts. The difference between the former and the latter is
that the first three counts are asserted against the Committee
Defendants, whereas the last three counts are asserted against PCA
and the Board Defendants. In the last three counts, Miller claims
that PCA and the Board Defendants failed to monitor the Committee
Defendants with regard to their decisions about RKA fees,
investment options, and managed account services fees.
Because Miller fails to state a claim in Count 1 regarding RKA
fees, he necessarily fails to state a claim in Count 4 regarding
PCA and the Board Defendants' alleged failure to monitor the
Committee Defendants. Similarly, Miller lacks standing and fails to
state a claim in Count 3, he necessarily lacks standing and fails
to state a claim in Count 6. And because the Court will not be
dismissing Count 2, the Court will not dismiss Count 5.
A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 30, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/4umh5yv9 from Leagle.com.
PLUG POWER: Melton Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Larry E. Melton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PLUG POWER INC., ANDREW MARSH, PAUL B. MIDDLETON, DAVID
MINDNICH, and MARTIN D. HULL, Case No. 1:23-cv-00409-UNA (D. Del.,
April 12, 2023), is brought on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Plug common stock
between August 9, 2022, and March 1, 2023, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as a result of the Defendants
materially false and/or misleading statements.
The Class Period begins on August 9, 2022, to coincide with the
publication of Plug's financial results for the second quarter of
2022, when Defendants assured investors that the Company had a
"Strong Business Outlook" and touted a $15 billion sales funnel.
Defendants also emphasized that the Company's supply chain was
strong and that Plug's rapidly growing inventory was simply
attributable to the substantial growth the Company would experience
in the second half of 2022. Consistent with these representations,
Defendants projected that the Company would generate 2022 revenue
between $900 million and $925 million, representing approximately
80% year-over-year growth.
Just a few months later, on October 14, 2022, investors began to
learn the truth about Plug's prospects when the Company warned that
full-year revenue could be 5% to 10% lower than previously
projected. Defendants attributed the revenue revision to "some
larger projects potentially being completed in 2023 instead of 2022
due to timing and broader supply chain issues." On this news, the
price of Plug common stock declined $1.20 per share, or more than
6%, from a close of $19.23 per share on October 13, 2022, to close
at $18.03 per share on October 14, 2022.
About three weeks later, on November 8, 2022, the Company reported
its financial results for the third quarter of 2022, reporting a
decrease in gross margins and a further increase in inventory
levels. On this news, the price of Plug common stock declined $0.20
per share, or more than 1%, from a close of $14.81 per share on
November 8, 2022, to close at $14.61 per share on November 9,
2022.
On January 25, 2023, despite Defendants' previous assurances that
revenue growth would be at least 60% on a year-over-year basis,
Plug revealed that it now expected to generate year-over-year
revenue growth of just 45% to 50% in 2022. Defendants explained
that this
disappointing result "had to do with the fact that the new products
came out a little slower than we hoped." Following this revelation,
the price of Plug common stock declined $0.97 per share, or
approximately 6%, from a close of $16.34 per share on January 25,
2023, to close at $15.37 per share on January 26, 2023.
Then, after the market closed on March 1, 2023, the Company
announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full
year 2022, including full-year revenue growth of just 40% on a
year-over-year basis—missing even the reduced guidance range
provided just a few weeks prior. On this news, the price of Plug
common stock declined $0.88 per share, or more than 6%, from a
close of $14.21 per share on March 1, 2023, to close at $13.33 per
share on March 2, 2023.
The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that the Company was
unable to effectively manage its supply chain and product
manufacturing, resulting in reduced revenues and margins, increased
inventory levels, and several large deals being delayed until at
least 2023, among other issues. As a result, Defendants statements
about the Company's business, operations, prospects, and ability to
effectively manage its supply chain and production lacked a
reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the
Company's common stock when the truth was revealed, Plaintiff and
other members of the Class have suffered significant damages, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Plug common stock at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Plug is a hydrogen fuel cell company that develops power systems
for use in electric vehicles, stationary power units, and other
purposes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Phone: (302) 274-2180
Facsimile: (302) 351-6905
Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
- and -
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Karissa J. Sauder, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
Email: namjed@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
ksauder@ktmc.com
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR: Macias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Positive Behavior
Supports Corp., et al. The case is styled as Mariah Macias, on
behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated v. Positive
Behavior Supports Corp., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2023-00337859-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
12, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) Corp. -- https://www.teampbs.com/
-- is an agency committed to the principles of Positive Behavior
Support.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0354
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com
PRIME HYDRATION: May Face Class Action of PFAS in Sport Drinks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are investigating whether
the grape-flavored Prime Hydration sports drink contains toxic
"forever" chemicals known as PFAS despite being advertised as
"naturally flavored." It's possible that a class action lawsuit
could be filed.
What Are PFAS?
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of synthetic
chemicals linked to certain types of cancer, fertility problems,
increased cholesterol levels, thyroid disease and more.
How Could a Class Action Lawsuit Help?
If filed and successful, a lawsuit could help consumers get back
some of the money they spent on the sports drink. It could also
force the company to change how it makes or advertises the
beverage.
What You Can Do
If you've bought a grape-flavored Prime Hydration sports drink,
fill out the form on this page to find out how you can help the
investigation.
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org would like to speak with
anyone who has purchased a Prime Hydration Grape sports drink. They
have reason to suspect the "naturally flavored" beverage may
contain harmful chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS).
Now, the attorneys are investigating whether a class action lawsuit
could be filed against Prime over how it advertised the sports
drink to consumers.
Have you purchased a grape-flavored Prime Hydration sports drink?
If so, fill out the form on this page and share your story. The
information you provide could help get a lawsuit started.
What Are PFAS?
The term PFAS refers to a large group of human-made chemicals that
have been used since the mid-20th century to make consumer and
industrial products resistant to heat, oil, grease, stains and
water. PFAS are commonly found in a wide variety of everyday items,
including nonstick cookware, food packaging, cosmetics, carpets and
outdoor apparel, to name a few.
These "forever chemicals" do not break down easily and can
accumulate in the environment and in the human body over time.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
most Americans have been exposed to some PFAS due to their
persistent nature and widespread use.
What Are the Health Risks Associated with PFAS Chemicals?
The United States Environmental Protection Agency reports that
exposure to certain levels of PFAS has been associated with the
following health effects:
Prostate, kidney and testicular cancer
Decreased fertility
Developmental delays in children
Increased cholesterol
Suppressed immune function
Other health effects generally linked to PFAS include liver damage,
increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease.
Attorneys believe that the grape-flavored Prime Hydration sports
drink may contain these dangerous chemicals and should have never
been advertised as "naturally flavored."
How Could a Class Action Lawsuit Help?
A class action lawsuit, if successful, could help customers get
back some money they spent on the potentially toxic sports drink. A
lawsuit could also require Prime to discontinue using any PFAS in
the beverage or change how it markets the product.
It's worth mentioning that Prime, which offers a line of energy
drinks in addition to its Hydration sports drinks, has become a
viral sensation since popular Youtubers Logan Paul and KSI first
released the brand in January 2022.
Kids and teenagers are especially caught up in the frenzy, as news
outlets report that children are clearing Prime drinks off the
supermarket shelves despite packaging warnings that the Hydration
drinks are "not suitable for children under 15 years of age" and
the Energy drinks are "not recommended for children under the age
of 18."
Prime Energy has since been banned in a number of schools due to
its high caffeine content, and reports that students are selling
the beverage to their peers on school grounds.
If you bought a Prime Hydration grape-flavored sports drink, fill
out the form on this page. You may be able to help get a class
action lawsuit started. [GN]
PROSPECT AIRPORT: Cook Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Cook, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES, INC.; PAYLOCITY CORPORATION; DOES 1
through 50; inclusive, Case No. A-23-869042-C (D. Nev., April 17,
2023), is brought against the Defendant failure to pay overtime in
violation of failure to timely pay all wages due and owing in
violation of the Nevada Revised Statute ("NRS").
The Plaintiff has frequently worked over 8 hours in any 24-hour
workday. On many occasions, the number of hours he worked in a
workday under Nevada law was over 8 hours in a 24-hour period of
time. For instance, during the workweek of April 25, 2021, the
Defendants scheduled the Plaintiff to work and the Plaintiff did
work over 8 hours in a 24-hour period of time. But despite having
worked more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period of time, the
Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff at one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for the overtime hours he worked.
Similarly, during the workweek of May 7, 2021, the Defendants
scheduled the Plaintiff to work and Plaintiff did work over 8 hours
in a 24-hour period of time. But despite having worked more than 8
hours in a 24-hour period of time, the Defendants failed to
compensate the Plaintiff at one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for the overtime hours he worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee from March 2018 to August 2022.
Prospect Airport Services, Inc. is a foreign corporation listed
with the Nevada Secretary of State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian Gabroy, Esq.
Kaine Messer, Esq.
GABROY | MESSER
The District at Green Valley Ranch
170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
Henderson, NV 89012
Phone: (702) 259-7777
Fax: (702) 259-7704
Email: christian@gabroy.com
kmesser@gabroy.com
QUONTIC BANK: GASIC Case Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Great American Security
Insurance Company v. Quontic Bank, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-07188-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an
order granting Parties' requests to continue the stay in the case
until the class certification issue is resolved in the underlying
case.
The parties must continue to provide joint status updates on the
underlying litigation, including on the pending motion for class
certification, every three months, with the next update due by no
later than July 10, 2023.
As detailed in the parties' joint letter to the Court, this matter
concerns whether Quontic is entitled to insurance coverage under a
policy issued by Great American in connection with an underlying
lawsuit against Quontic. The underlying lawsuit against Quontic is
a purported class action involving alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Notably, the individual that brought the case on behalf of the
purported class, Paul Sapan, alleges that he received four
telemarketing calls from Quontic in violation of the TCPA, which,
if true, would entitle him to $500 per call (or $1,500 per call if
the violations were willful).
Thus, the value of the underlying lawsuit, and, in turn, the value
of the insurance coverage dispute between the parties here, hinges
on whether the purported class is certified. If class certification
is denied, the underlying plaintiff’s potential damages will be
relatively modest and likely not involve the coverage provided
under the Great American policy due to the policy's sizeable
retention. Of course, Quontic intends to oppose class certification
and, if successful, the dispute before Your Honor will disappear.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L6KfFr at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katelin O'Rourke Gorman, Esq.
CLYDE & CO US LLP
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin V. Small, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, Ny 10166-0005
Telephone: (212) 309-1000
Facsimile: (212) 309-1100
Telephone: (212) 309-1226
E-mail: Ksmall@Huntonak.com
R&L CARRIERS: Court Junks Johnson Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT JOHNSON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v.
R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company; R&L
CARRIERS, INC., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01619-MCS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge
Mark Scarci entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the Defendants' motion to deny class certification and strike the
Plaintiff Albert Johnson's representative claims:
-- The Defendants' motion to deny class certification is
granted.
-- The Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's PAGA claims is
denied.
Given the disposition, the Court vacates its scheduling order and
directs the parties to meet and confer and file within 14 days of a
proposed schedule of pretrial and trial dates for the Plaintiff's
individual and PAGA claims. The Parties must propose a trial date
no later than November 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41exrlJ at no extra charge.[CC]
RAINBOW CLEANING: Farias Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yuri Perez Farias, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Rainbow Cleaning Service, LLC, Andrii Gurskyi, and
Irina Shebshenko, Case No. 1:23-cv-02763 (E.D.N.Y., April 12,
2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and the NYLL's Wage
Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA").
The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and
one-half times her hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of
forty per workweek. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond
Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants
did not state the correct gross wages, as defined by NYLL, for any
employee on any pay statement as required by NYLL or deductions
from the correct gross wages.
The Plaintiff was not required to keep track of her time, nor to
her knowledge, did the Defendants utilize any time tracking device,
such as sign in sheets or punch cards, that accurately reflected
her actual hours worked. No notification, either in the form of
posted notices, or other means, was ever given to Plaintiff
regarding wages are required under the FLSA or NYLL, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a housekeeper and
as a non-managerial employee.
The Defendants operate a home cleaning service company.[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
RECKITT BENCKISER: 11th Cir. Vacates $8MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Anthony, Esq. and Justin Golart, Esq., of Troutman Pepper, in
an article for JDSupra, disclosed that on April 12, the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an $8 million class-action
settlement for lack of standing. While the issue was not raised by
the district court or either party on appeal, the court ruled that
the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because
they did not allege they planned to purchase again the brain
performance supplements at issue.
In Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, three plaintiffs filed three
separate class action complaints that were later consolidated in
the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants' advertising of its brain performance supplements, which
claimed that the supplements would improve "focus," "accuracy" and
"concentration," and that the product had been clinically tested,
was false and misleading in violation of multiple state unfair
trade practices laws. The parties quickly reached a settlement that
included injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from using the
terms "clinically proven," "science proved," and "clinically tested
and shown," in their marketing for a period of two years. The
district court approved the settlement. However, one class member
appealed, arguing the $8 million benefit to the class was
"illusory" because the claims process was structured in a way that
class members would only receive a fraction of that amount.
Without addressing the merits of the objecting class member's
claims, the appellate court found that because the plaintiffs
failed to allege any continuing or imminent harm, they lacked
standing to seek injunctive relief. "[E]ven if a plaintiff can
establish standing to pursue separate claims for monetary relief
based on allegations of past harm, before a court may grant the
plaintiff injunctive relief, the plaintiff must separately
establish a threat of 'real and immediate,' as opposed to
'conjectural or hypothetical,' future injury." The court found that
in this case, the plaintiffs not only did not allege that they
planned to purchase the supplements in the future, they instead
gave "every indication" to the contrary because the products are
"worthless."
While the court did not find error in the monetary relief granted,
because the injunctive relief "formed an integral part of the
district court's calculus of its overall fairness," the entire
award was set aside and the case was remanded.
Our Take:
This case is another reminder to defense counsel of the importance
of conducting a thorough review of plaintiff's standing throughout
all phases of a class action. While plaintiffs' lack of standing
can lead to a defense victory at the pleading stage, it can also
undo a class settlement agreement. [GN]
ROUNDABOUT THEATRE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roundabout Theatre
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Roundabout
Theatre Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03075 (S.D.N.Y., April 12,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Roundabout Theatre Company --
https://www.roundabouttheatre.org/ -- is a non-profit theatre
company based in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, affiliated with
the League of Resident Theatres.[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
RUBBER STAMPS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubber Stamps
Unlimited, Inc. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Rubber Stamps
Unlimited, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03073-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y., April
12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rubber Stamps Unlimited Inc was founded in 1993. The company's line
of business includes manufacturing marking devices, such as rubber
and metal hand-stamps, dies, and seals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
RYVYL INC: Continues to Defend Cullen Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYVYL Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 17, 2023, that the Company will continue to
defend itself from the Cullen Class Suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.
On February 1, 2023 a purported class action lawsuit titled Cullen
V. RYVYL Inc. fka GreenBox POS, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00185-GPC-AGS, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California against the company
and certain of our current and former directors and officers (the
"Defendants").
The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
January 29, 2021 and January 20, 2023, (the "Class Action"). The
complaint generally alleges that the Defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and prospects.
The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and expert fees to
the putative class.
As the Company cannot predict the outcome of the matter the
probability of an outcome cannot be determined. The Company intends
to vigorously defend against all claims.
Ryvyl Inc., formerly GreenBox POS, is a financial technology
company. The Company develops, markets, and sells blockchain-based
payment solutions.[BN]
SAFEWAY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Buy One, Get One Promotions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzalo E. Mon at adlawaccess.com reports that Buy One, Get One -
or "BOGO" offers - are popular with consumers and almost ubiquitous
in grocery stores and other retailers across the country. Although
retailers have a lot of flexibility in how to structure those
offers, they need to ensure that the offers aren't structured in a
manner that overstates the amount of money that consumers can
save.
Consumers filed a class action against Safeway and its parent
company alleging that the grocer unlawfully inflates the regular
retail price of products used in buy-one-get-one-free promotions,
causing consumers to effectively still pay for the "seemingly" free
product. For example, the complaint alleges that Safeway sold a
product for $7.47 one day and for $10.99 the next day, as part of a
BOGO offer.
The complaint cites the FTC's guides on using the word "free" -
which state that a consumer "has a right to believe that the
merchant will not directly and immediately recover, in whole or in
part, the cost of the free merchandise . . . by marking up the
price of the article which must be purchased" - and argues that the
guides should be persuasive in determining whether a practice
violates state law.
It's too early to tell how this case will turn out or how the FTC's
guides, which were adopted in 1971, will apply in a context in
which some retailers adjust their prices frequently. It's likely
that these types of suits will continue as bargain conscious
consumers look for sales, though. We'll keep our eyes open for
updates. In the meantime, you can click here for more developments
on pricing and sale practices.[GN]
SAN ANTONIO, TX: Faces Class Suit Over Workplace Sexual Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Firmani of Businesswire reports that two women filed a
class-action lawsuit in Texas state court in Bexar County against
the City of San Antonio, alleging that male supervisors at the
City's Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center routinely targeted
female maintenance workers with sexual harassment, gender
discrimination, bullying and physical abuse, and created a sexually
charged, toxic work environment.
Filed Friday, April 14, the petition alleges that the city-run
facility routinely ignored and dismissed claims of the victimized
women, while allowing the male perpetrators to continue their
abuse. In one notable instance, a male supervisor physically
assaulted a female subordinate - an act captured on security
cameras - and was given just five days' suspension.
The filing details how male supervisors of the Convention Center
would routinely subject the women to sexualized abuse and bullying,
taunting them with lewd verbal comments, sexual sounds, and text
and email messages containing highly inappropriate sexual content.
The two named plaintiffs had filed complaints with the Texas
Workforce Commission, which recently gave its authorization to file
the civil lawsuit.
"We have overwhelming evidence that the city failed to protect
these two women from horrible abuse from their male supervisors,
and we believe the problem extends far beyond what these two women
endured," said Lynn Ellenberger of FeganScott, the firm
representing the women. "That is why we've filed this as a class
action to represent all current and former female maintenance
workers at the city-run facility,"
According to the petition, after the women reported the abuse,
their supervisors began a campaign to punish them for stepping
forward.
"These women did everything right by reporting the abuse in their
chain of command, trusting that the city would follow its policies
and protect them," said Mark Anthony Sanchez, an attorney at San
Antonio-based Sanchez & Wilson and co-counsel in the case. "The
cold reality is that the city failed them at every step of the way.
Not only did the city ignore their cries for help, but it also
tacitly gave their abusers a green light to make their lives
miserable for stepping forward."
"It is apparent to us that the city either lacks the desire or the
ability to end this sort of reprehensible behavior, and we will use
the justice system to force real and lasting change to the city
and, specifically, to the hourly female maintenance workers who
have no choice but to go to work each day and suffer in this
environment to provide for their families," said Lynn Ellenberger.
Current and former employees of the City of San Antonio Convention
Center who would like to speak with FeganScott regarding the claims
are urged to send their contact information to
SanAntonio@feganscott.com.
FeganScott is a national class action law firm dedicated to helping
victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Beth Fegan, the
firm's founder and managing member, and Lynn Ellenberger
represented the group of survivors suing criminally convicted movie
mogul Harvey Weinstein. The firm, championed by acclaimed veteran
class-action attorneys, has successfully recovered $1 billion for
victims nationwide. FeganScott is committed to pursuing successful
outcomes with integrity and excellence while holding the
responsible parties accountable.
Sanchez & Wilson is a San Antonio litigation firm that represents
clients in any adjudicative forum. Mark Anthony Sanchez, firm
founder, is Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the
Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
Contacts
Mark Firmani
feganscottpr@firmani.com [GN]
SINGTEL OPTUS: Faces Class Action Over September 2022 Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SC Media reports that major Australian telecommunications provider
Optus has been hit with a class action lawsuit involving more than
100,000 current and former customers in relation to a widespread
data breach last September that impacted nearly 1.2 million
clients, Reuters reports.
Such a breach was caused by Optus not practicing adequate customer
data protections, as well as failing to perform data
de-identification or termination for its former clients, according
to the lawsuit, which had been lodged in federal court.
"Very real risks were created by the disclosure of this private
information that Optus customers had every right to believe was
securely protected by their telecommunications and internet
provider," said Class Actions Practice Group Leader Ben Hardwick.
Several other Australian organizations have been impacted by
cyberattacks following the Optus breach, including fellow
telecommunications providers Telstra and TPG Telecom, as well as
retailer Woolworths, prompting the Australian government to mull
the creation of a cybersecurity coordinating agency. [GN]
SKILLZ INC: Jedrzejczyk Appellate Brief Expected in May
-------------------------------------------------------
Skillz Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 31, 2023, that the appellate brief of plaintiff
is expected in May 2023.
On May 7, 2021, two shareholders filed securities class action
lawsuits against Skillz Inc., Andrew Paradise, Casey Chafkin,
Miriam Aguirre, Scott Henry and Harry Sloan in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Jedrzejczyk v. Skillz Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-3450.
On October 8, 2021, Court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Skillz common stock between
December 16, 2020 and May 4, 2021 against Defendants as well as the
other members of the Company's board of directors (with Defendants,
the "Company Defendants") and the underwriters in its March 2021
underwritten public offering.
The amended complaint alleged that the Company Defendants and the
underwriter defendants made false and/or misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as in violation of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Company Defendants and underwriter defendants filed motions to
dismiss on December 7, 2021.
The Court granted the motions and dismissed all claims on July 5,
2022, but allowed plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint.
On August 4, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging violations of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
against the Company, Andrew Paradise, Casey Chafkin, Miriam Aguirre
and Scott Henry (the "remaining Company Defendants").
The plaintiffs dropped their claims under the Securities Act and
did not name the underwriters or any other officers or directors.
On September 19, 2022, the remaining Company Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss all remaining claims against them.
On March 1, 2023, the Court granted that motion and dismissed all
of plaintiff's remaining claims.
On March 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal. Skillz has not
yet received the Plaintiff's appellate brief, which is expected in
approximately two months.
Skillz Inc. is a mobile games platform that connects players in
fair, fun, and meaningful competition. The Skillz platform helps
developers build multi-million dollar franchises by enabling social
competition in their games. Leveraging its patented technology,
Skillz hosts billions of casual esports tournaments for millions of
mobile players worldwide, and distributes millions in prizes each
month.
SKILLZ INC: Shultz Appellate Brief Expected in May
--------------------------------------------------
Skillz Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 31, 2023, that the appellate brief of plaintiff
is expected in May 2023.
On June 17, 2021, two shareholders filed securities class action
lawsuits against Skillz Inc., Andrew Paradise, Casey Chafkin,
Miriam Aguirre, Scott Henry and Harry Sloan in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Shultz v. Skillz Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-04662.
On October 8, 2021, Court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Skillz common stock between
December 16, 2020 and May 4, 2021 against Defendants as well as the
other members of the Company's board of directors (with Defendants,
the "Company Defendants") and the underwriters in its March 2021
underwritten public offering.
The amended complaint alleged that the Company Defendants and the
underwriter defendants made false and/or misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as in violation of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Company Defendants and underwriter defendants filed motions to
dismiss on December 7, 2021.
The Court granted the motions and dismissed all claims on July 5,
2022, but allowed plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint.
On August 4, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
alleging violations of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
against the Company, Andrew Paradise, Casey Chafkin, Miriam Aguirre
and Scott Henry (the "remaining Company Defendants").
The plaintiffs dropped their claims under the Securities Act and
did not name the underwriters or any other officers or directors.
On September 19, 2022, the remaining Company Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss all remaining claims against them.
On March 1, 2023, the Court granted that motion and dismissed all
of plaintiff's remaining claims.
On March 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal. Skillz has not
yet received the Plaintiff's appellate brief, which is expected in
approximately two months.
Skillz Inc. is a mobile games platform that connects players in
fair, fun, and meaningful competition. The Skillz platform helps
developers build multi-million dollar franchises by enabling social
competition in their games. Leveraging its patented technology,
Skillz hosts billions of casual esports tournaments for millions of
mobile players worldwide, and distributes millions in prizes each
month.
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: SCOTUS Weighs Direct Listing in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chung and editing by Will Dunham of WHBL reports that U.S.
Supreme Court justices on April 17, 2023 weighed a bid by
Salesforce Inc's Slack Technologies to avoid a lawsuit over its
2019 direct listing in a case that could undermine the ability of
shareholders to sue companies for alleged misstatements when they
go public.
The justices heard arguments in an appeal by Slack, which makes
workplace communications software, of a lower court ruling that let
the proposed class action lawsuit filed by shareholder Fiyyaz
Pirani for alleged violations of a federal investor protection law
proceed. A direct listing is an alternative to a traditional
initial public offering.
Questions asked by the justices indicated that even if they side
with Slack on part of the case, they may send it back to lower
courts to further consider the full scope of Pirani's claims.
Slack contends that Pirani's lawsuit alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 12 of a federal law called the Securities Act of
1933 must be dismissed because he cannot prove that he bought
registered shares that were specified in the company's allegedly
misleading registration statement for the direct listing, rather
than shares that were exempt from registration. The registration
statement was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).
Salesforce, a major business software maker, purchased Slack for
$27.7 billion in 2021.
The justices seemed open to Slack's view that Section 11 of the
Securities Act, which lets plaintiffs sue for falsities in a
registration statement if they bought "such security," refers to
registered, not unregistered, shares.
"The statute says, 'such security.' I mean that's the big hurdle
for you to get over," conservative Chief Justice John Roberts told
Pirani's attorney Kevin Russell.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Russell, "It does seem to me like
you have hard row to hoe here."
But some justices also seemed hesitant to endorse Slack's view of
claims under Section 12 - which focuses on untrue statements in a
prospectus that accompanies the sale of a security - saying that
there is little case law and the SEC itself has not weighed in on
the issue.
"That strikes me as a big issue for these direct listings and
something that I'm not sure we're fully equipped at this moment to
chime in on," conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Slack's
lawyer, Thomas Hungar.
In a direct listing, an approach approved by the SEC in 2018,
registered shares and the unregistered shares of early investors in
a company are made available to the public at the same time. That
differs from an IPO, under which newly registered shares are
offered to the public while existing shareholders are typically
barred from selling their unregistered shares for months.
Slack's direct listing released 118 million shares that were
registered under its registration statement and 165 million
pre-existing shares that were exempt from registration.
When Slack's stock price dropped, Pirani sued, alleging the
company's registration statement and prospectus contained
misstatements about service outages, the credits it promised to pay
customers when service was disrupted, and the competition it faced
from Teams, Microsoft's rival software.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021
rejected Slack's bid to dismiss the case because Pirani cannot
prove his shares were registered, saying the argument in the
context of a direct listing would "create a loophole large enough
to undermine the purpose of Section 11." [GN]
SOL DE JANEIRO: Raslavich Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Raslavich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sol De Janeiro USA, Inc., Case No. 170770900 (Fla. 13th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., April 11, 2023), is brought
under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") as a result
pf the Defendant's unlawful telephonic sales calls.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and the
Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and the Class
members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was the regular user of telephone number that
received the Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 422–7782
Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
Email: ben@theKRfirm.com
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities
class suits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
Three related putative securities class action lawsuits were
subsequently filed by shareholders against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York: Osorio-Franco
v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292
(filed December 5, 2022); Cummings v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10677 (filed December 19, 2022); and
Carneiro v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00767 (filed January 30, 2023). These three New York
lawsuits allege that the Company and certain of its executive
officers and directors made false or misleading statements about,
inter alia, the safety and efficacy of and clinical trial data for
Poziotinib in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and seek remedies including damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as determined by the Court.
The Osorio-Franco and Cummings lawsuits allege Class Periods
between December 6, 2021 and September 22, 2022.
The Carneiro lawsuit alleges a Class Period between July 27, 2020
and September 22, 2022, which overlaps with the Luo action Class
Period.
On February 15, 2023, the Court consolidated the three New York
lawsuits, with Osorio-Franco as the lead case.
The Company believes that all of the putative securities class
action lawsuit claims are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against these claims.
Spectrum purports to be a biopharmaceutical company focused on
acquiring, developing, and commercializing novel and targeted
oncology therapies.[BN]
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing Still Not Set in Luo Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the U.S.
District Court, District of Nevada has not set hearing for the Luo
putative securities class suit.
On August 31, 2021, this putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that the Company and
certain of its current and former executive officers and directors
made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts about its business and the prospects of approval for its BLA
to the FDA for eflapegrastim (ROLVEDON) in violation of Section
10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On November 1, 2021, four individuals and one entity filed
competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval
of counsel.
On July 28, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel
for the putative class.
On September 26, 2022, an amended complaint was filed alleging,
inter alia, false and misleading statements with respect to
ROLVEDON manufacturing operations and controls and added
allegations that defendants misled investors about the efficacy of,
clinical trial data and market need for Poziotinib between a Class
Period of March 7, 2018 and August 5, 2021.
The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys’
fees, and such other relief as determined by the Court.
On November 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which motion is pending.
There is no hearing date presently scheduled.
Spectrum purports to be a biopharmaceutical company focused on
acquiring, developing, and commercializing novel and targeted
oncology therapies.[BN]
SPHERE 3D: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 22
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Sphere 3D Corp. (NASDAQ: ANY) resulting from
allegations that Sphere 3D may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Sphere 3D securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=15274 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 17, 2022, CoinDesk issued an
article entitled, "Questions Swirl Around NuMiner's 'Best in Class'
BitcoinMining Rig." The article reported that "Sphere 3D (ANY), a
Toronto-based data management company, announced it was acquiring
60,000 mining rigs for about $1.7 billion from NuMiner Global, a
New York-based company that appears to have popped outof thin air.
A search on the New York state company registry yielded zero
results for "NuMiner." The company claims to be affiliated with
NuMiner Technologies Ltd., for which practically no information is
publicly available." Several people were skeptical of the deal, the
report citing, "Fred Thiel, CEO of one of the biggest publicly
traded miners, Marathon Digital, also tweeted that he was skeptical
of NuMiner's claims and voiced concern about the cooling
technology, or lack thereof." Then, on March 3, 2022, Culper
Research issued a report viewing Sphere 3D as a stock promotion.
Regarding the deal with NuMiner, the report stated, "The deal is
meant to be structured with $29 million in cash, roughly $400
million in ANY-equivalent shares, $1.1 billion in vendor financing
(at an abusive rate of 9% interest and 18% of all bitcoins mined),
and $185 million in milestone payments. We think this deal is
totally contrived and will never happen."
On this news, Sphere 3D's stock price fell $0.28, or 12.23%, to
close at $2.01 per share on March 3, 2022.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
SPRINGPOINT SENIOR: Supreme Court to Review Ruling in Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Bonvissuto at mcknightsseniorliving.com reports that the
New Jersey Supreme Court will review a trial court's decision to
provide refunds to continuing care retirement community residents
who alleged a bait-and-switch scheme by a senior living operator.
Princeton, NJ-based Springpoint Senior Living, formerly
Presbyterian Homes & Services, is accused of consumer fraud over
allegations that it misrepresented the return of entrance fees once
residents leave a CCRC. A lawsuit filed in 2014 alleged violations
of the state's Consumer Fraud Act and the Continuing Care
Retirement Community Regulation and Financial Disclosure Act.
A Middlesex County Superior Court Judge denied a motion for partial
summary judgment in December, rejecting Springpoint's argument that
only the state health department had the right to file a lawsuit to
obtain a refund of community entry fees. Springpoint appealed the
decision to the state's high court.
A Springpoint spokeswoman told McKnight's Senior Living that the
company was "pleased" the high court agreed to hear its pre-trial
appeal.
"The issue is whether a particular provision of the Consumer Fraud
Act, which allows for the return of money paid by consumers and was
adopted as part of a statute prohibiting misrepresentations about
food, somehow also applies to contracts at elder care communities,"
the spokeswoman said. "Springpoint believes that claims being
asserted against it based on this refund provision are not
permitted by the statute. The trial judge allowed the claims to
proceed.
"Springpoint is hopeful that the Supreme Court will clarify the
limited scope of the refund provision and direct that these claims
be dismissed."
Lawsuit filed in 2014
William DeSimone filed the lawsuit in 2014 on behalf of his
mother's estate against Springpoint's New Jersey-based CCRCs at
Monroe Village, Springpoint at Montgomery, Springpoint at
Crestwood, Springpoint at Meadow Lakes and Springpoint at the
Atrium.
According to court documents, Evelyn DeSimone had paid a $159,000
entrance fee for an independent living unit at Monroe Village.
Before moving into her unit, however, she fell and broke her hip
and was unable to move in. Instead, she remained in the community's
skilled nursing care facility, where she lived until she passed
away in April 2010.
After her death, according to the lawsuit, her estate received a
refund that amounted to 50% of her initial entrance fee, less than
the 90% refund that had been anticipated.
The lawsuit alleges that Springpoint orchestrated a "bait and
switch" scheme through misleading and deceptive advertising, along
with "intentional misrepresentations" by sales personnel and an
incomplete and misleading disclosure statement.
The lawsuit also claims that Springpoint failed to alert
prospective residents that it was authorized to offer discounts on
subsequent re-leasing of units or to offer different payment
options that effectively could reduce refunds.
The case was dismissed in 2014 for failure to state a claim on
which relief can be granted, but it was reinstated in 2015 by an
appellate court. The case was certified as a class action in 2021.
Bill addresses CCRC refunds, contract language
A bill was introduced in the New Jersey Senate in February to
require CCRCs to return refundable entrance fees to former
residents or tier estates within a year of the unit being vacated.
If passed, the bill also would require that all CCRC agreements "be
written in plain English and in language understandable by a
layperson." [GN]
SUN PRODUCTS: Eidelman Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAYA EIDELMAN, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE SUN
PRODUCTS CORPORATION AND COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No.
7:16-cv-03914-NSR-PED (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. granting certification of the following classes:
(i) Rule 23(b)(3) Class -- All persons who purchased the
All
Free Clear Plus Product ("AFC+ Product") from Costco
stores and/or warehouses located in the State of New
York
during the applicable limitations period through the
date
of certification.
The term "persons" includes individuals, as well as
profit and not-for-profit corporations, partnerships,
limited liability companies, limited liability
partnerships, joint ventures, sole proprietorships,
associations, firm, trust and other business and
government entities; and
(ii) Rule 23(b)(2) Equitable Relief Class -- All persons
who
purchased the AFC+ Product from Costco stores and/or
warehouses located in the State of New York;
2. Appointing the Plaintiff as class representative;
3. Appointing the law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman,
P.C. as Class Counsel; and
Sun Products was a United States-based manufacturer of laundry
detergent, fabric softeners, and other household care products.
Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a
chain of membership-only big-box retail stores (warehouse club).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 10, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4084eI5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
Jay I. Brody, Esq.
KANTORWITZ, GOLDHAMER
& GRAIFMAN, P.C.
16 Squadron Blvd., Suite 106
New City, NY 10956
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
SUTTER VALLEY: Court Junks Ward Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ward v. Sutter Valley
Hospitals, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00581 (E.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge
Kimberly J Mueller entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and conditional certification of collective
action without prejudice.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
SYNCHRONY BANK: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due August 30 in Williams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams, v. Synchrony
Bank, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00252 (D. Conn.), Hon. Judge Alvin
W. Thompson entered an order that the deadline for the motion for
class certification is August 30, 2023.
The court will refer the case for a settlement conference and if
the plaintiff wishes to conduct limited discovery after receiving
the information the defendants provide in preparation for the
settlement conference, Judge Vatti or the undersigned will decide
what discovery will be permitted.
The court will resolve other issues with respect to discovery,
including the issue of phased discovery, after the settlement
conference has been held.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.
Synchrony is a consumer financial services company.[CC]
TALKSPACE INC: Faces Shareholder Suits in New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Talkspace, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 10, 2023, that in January 2022, the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors were named as defendants in securities class action
complaints filed in the United States District court for the
Southern District of New York under the case headings: (1) "Baron
v. Talkspace et al.," No. 22-cv-00163 (S.D.N.Y.) and (2) "Valdez v.
Talkspace et al.," No. 22-cv-00840 (S.D.N.Y.).
These securities actions asserted violations of sections 10(b),
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
Talkspace, Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiaries is a
behavioral healthcare company based in New York.
TALKSPACE INC: Faces Valdez Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Talkspace, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 10, 2023, that in December 2022, the
company's subsidiary Tailwind Merger Sub II, LLC, certain of the
company's current and former directors and officers, and others
were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint filed
in the Delaware court of Chancery under the case caption "Valdez v.
Braunstein, et al.," Case No. 2022-1148.
The Delaware action asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty relating to the merger
with Hudson Executive Investment Corp. (HEC), among other things,
based on many of the same facts at issue in the consolidated
securities action. The complaint seeks, among other things damages
on behalf of putative class members who did not redeem their shares
in connection with the company's merger with HEC.
Talkspace, Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiaries is a
behavioral healthcare company based in New York.
TELEPERFORMANCE SE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 22
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit seeking to
represent purchasers or acquirers of Teleperformance SE
TLPFY American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between July 29, 2020
and November 9, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Captioned City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System v.
Teleperformance SE, No. 23-cv-0181 (D. Idaho), the Teleperformance
class action lawsuit charges Teleperformance and certain of its top
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, with 200 lawyers in ten offices,
represents U.S. and international institutional investors in
contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has
obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in
history, including the largest securities class action judgment.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-teleperformance-se-class-action-lawsuit-tlpfy.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Teleperformance class action lawsuit must
be filed with the court no later than June 20, 2023.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Teleperformance is a provider of outsourced
omnichannel customer experience management services and related
digital services. Teleperformance's services include content
moderation for social media platforms, such as TikTok.
As the Teleperformance class action lawsuit alleges, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Teleperformance's growth in
Core Services and Digital Integrated Business Services, which
included content moderation services, had been achieved, in part,
by requiring its content moderators to engage in inappropriate,
traumatic, abusive, and potentially criminal activities; (ii)
certain Teleperformance social content moderators had been trained
with materials which included illicit images of child sexual
exploitation; (iii) contraband images had been included in
Teleperformance Daily Required Reading reports for its content
moderation staff; (iv) Teleperformance had failed to safeguard
child sexual abuse material and had potentially violated strict
rules governing the handling of such materials, including rules
relating to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children;
(v) Teleperformance had failed to provide adequate training or
emotional and psychological support to content moderators exposed
to egregious materials, including those exposed to extreme graphic
violence and sexual images; (vi) Teleperformance had imposed
unreasonable time and performance targets that compounded the
occupational trauma suffered by its content moderators; and (vii)
Teleperformance had failed to implement or maintain the working
conditions represented to investors, including by subjecting
Teleperformance's content moderation workers to widespread
occupational trauma without psychological support, and with paltry
pay, punitive salary deductions, extensive surveillance, and
aggressive union-busting tactics.
On August 4, 2022, Forbes published an article entitled "TikTok
Moderators Are Being Trained Using Graphic Images Of Child Sexual
Abuse," revealing that Teleperformance had subjected its workers to
unconscionable working conditions, including being "shown
uncensored, sexually explicit images of children." On this news,
the price of Teleperformance ADRs fell by nearly 5%.
Then, on November 9, 2022, Time reported that "Colombia's Ministry
of Labor has launched an investigation into TikTok subcontractor
Teleperformance, relating to alleged union-busting, traumatic
working conditions and low pay." On this news, the price of
Teleperformance ADRs declined nearly 19%, further damaging
investors.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Teleperformance ADRs during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff of the Teleperformance class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the
Teleperformance class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice to litigate the Teleperformance class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the Teleperformance class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading complex class action firms representing
plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the
most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for
recovering more than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 -- the
third year in a row Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those
three years alone, Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for
investors, more than double the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is
one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
TRINSEO PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 20
------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Trinseo PLC ("Trinseo" or the "Company")
(NYSE: TSE). The lawsuit alleges Trinseo made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, including: (1) the Company's Bristol, Pennsylvania plant
had a troubled safety record while under prior ownership and
continued to be unsafe after the Company acquired it; (2)
Defendants did not sufficiently disclose specific risks related to
conducting operations at that plant; and (3) operating a chemical
plant with an unsafe history and presently unsafe operations
exposed the Company to a heightened risk of a chemical spill or
other adverse event.
If you bought shares of Trinseo between May 3, 2021 and March 27,
2023 and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you
are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq. at
jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or
you may visit the firm's website
https://holzerlaw.com/case/trinseo/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is June 20, 2023.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
TURNING POINT: Parties in Viera Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Viera v. Turning Point
USA, Case No. (M.D. Fla.), Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an
order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent
to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of
agreeable deadlines in their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for:
(1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, the Plaintiff
and the Defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The suit states restrictions of use of telephone equipment.
Turning Point is an American nonprofit organization that advocates
for conservative politics on high school, college, and university
campuses.[CC]
UNITED PARCEL: Averts Class Action Over Alleged Systemic Bias
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the United
Parcel Service Inc. convinced a federal court to block classwide
allegations in a lawsuit alleging systemic bias at the company.
Eighteen women sued UPS in 2021 alleging an "old boy's club"
culture and seeking at least $250 million for female employees
across the country who were subjected to gender, age, or disability
bias after November 2017.
The US District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed the classwide allegations on Thursday because most named
plaintiffs hadn't exhausted administrative remedies.
The women didn't show "a coherent theory of maltreatment that is
applicable" to all of the plaintiffs. [GN]
UNITED STATES: CHD Sues Over Collusion to Suppress Free Speech
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay W. Belle Isle, writing for LegalReader, reports that Robert F.
Kennedy, Jr., Children's Health Defense (CHD) et al., filed a class
action lawsuit against President Joe Biden and numerous other
federal agents and agencies in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division. The complaint
alleges that the defendants have colluded with, encouraged and
pressured social media companies to suppress speech that the
government does not want the public to hear and to silence specific
speakers who are critical of federal policy.
This class action, brought on behalf of all Americans who access
the news from social media platforms, seeks nationwide injunctive
relief on behalf of those Americans. Instead of seeking monetary
damages, the claim asks the court to declare that the Defendants'
conduct violates the First Amendment and to prohibit them from
engaging in any form of social media censorship in the future.
The complaint calls the government's campaign to censor online
speech one of "the gravest threats to free speech this country has
ever faced."
"Because of the historically unprecedented power wielded by a
handful of behemoth social-media companies over the content of
American public discourse, the federal government's systematic
campaign to induce these companies to censor speech is among the
gravest threats to free speech this country has ever faced. …
Since 2020, an army of federal officers, at every level of the
government -- from the White House itself to the FBI, the CIA, the
Department of Homeland Security, the CDC, the Office of the Surgeon
General, and numerous less-well-known federal entities -- has been
engaged in the effort to induce those companies to censor
constitutionally protected speech."
"U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said, ‘Censorship
reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark
of an authoritarian regime.' It also violates the constitution,"
CHD Chairman and Chief Litigation Counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
said. "The collaboration between the White House and health and
intelligence agency bureaucrats to silence criticism of
presidential policies is an assault on the most fundamental
foundation stone of American Democracy."
"The most serious threat to free speech of our time -- and probably
one of the most serious in the nation's history -- is the federal
government's massive, concerted and extraordinarily successful
effort to get social media companies to censor ideas and
information the government doesn't want people to see, say or
hear," said Jed Rubenfeld, co-counsel for Plaintiffs. "This lawsuit
challenges that censorship campaign, and we hope to bring it to an
end. The real victim is the public, which is why we've brought this
suit as a class action on behalf of everyone who accesses news from
social media."
CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland said, "If Government
can censor its critics, there is no atrocity it cannot commit. The
public has been deprived of truthful, life-and-death information
over the last three years; this lawsuit aims to have government
censorship end, as it must, because it is unlawful under our
constitution."
Representing the Plaintiffs in addition to Mr. Rubenfeld is
Louisiana Attorney G. Shelly Maturin, II.
About Children's Health Defense:
Children's Health Defense is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
Our mission is to end childhood health epidemics by working
aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible
accountable and establish safeguards to prevent future harm. For
more information or to donate to CHD and our ongoing lawsuits,
visit ChildrensHealthDefense.org. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Civil Asset Forfeiture
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Woolley, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that US Customs and
Border Protection avoided a lawsuit alleging the agency overstepped
its authority when handling civil asset forfeiture.
Anthonia Nwaorie's proposed class action against CBP was tossed on
Friday after the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled
she lacked standing, failed to state a claim, and was barred by
sovereign immunity.
The decision affirmed that of the lower court and a magistrate
judge.
CBP officials seized more than $40,000 in cash from Nwaorie's
carry-on luggage during a Nigeria-bound departure from George Bush
Intercontinental Airport in Houston. [GN]
VIRGIN ORBIT: Faces WARN Act-Related Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Orbit Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2023, that the
Company faces a WARN Act-related class suit in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
On April 4, 2023, a former employee of Virgin Orbit LLC filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that the Company
violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act ("WARN Act") and California WARN Act in connection with its
termination of the employment of the plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees by failing to provide adequate advance written
notice of their terminations of employment.
The plaintiff seeks to certify the action as a class action and
seeks various other remedies on behalf of himself and others,
including unpaid wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, accrued
holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k) contributions
and other ERISA benefits, for up to 60 days, that would have been
covered and paid under the then-applicable employee benefit plans
had that coverage continued for that period all determined in
accordance with the WARN Act.
Virgin Orbit Holdings, Inc (Nasdaq: VORB) --
http://www.virginorbit.com/-- operates one of the most flexible
and responsive space launch systems ever built. Founded by Sir
Richard Branson in 2017, the Company began commercial service in
2021, and has already delivered commercial, civil, national
security, and international satellites into orbit. Virgin Orbit's
LauncherOne rockets are designed and manufactured in Long Beach,
California, and are air-launched from a modified 747-400 carrier
aircraft that allows Virgin Orbit Holdings, Inc., to operate from
locations all over the world in order to best serve each
customer's
needs.
VISION SOLAR: Faces Suit Over Unaffordable Loans for Solar Panels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Burchill at nbcconnecticut.com reports that a company
installing solar panels right here in Connecticut is now the target
of a class action lawsuit.
We've learned more than 20 people from around the country,
including a Connecticut resident, filed the class action lawsuit
against Vision Solar, a solar company operating in Connecticut and
other states.
The company is based out of New Jersey, but has an office in
Farmington.
Last month, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong filed a
lawsuit against the company, too, after he says his office heard 14
complaints from residents.
The lawsuit accuses the company of violating both the Home
Improvement Act and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The class action suit echoes the allegations of the attorney
general.
The lawsuit claims Vision Solar took advantage of low income,
elderly, and disabled homeowners, pressuring them into unaffordable
loans for solar panels that were never activated or were installed
without proper permits, among other allegations.
In the lawsuit, the Connecticut resident said a salesperson used
high-pressure tactics with promises of thousands of dollars in tax
credits, which he never received.
Vision Solar denied the attorney general's claims to NBC CT
Responds in our original report.
When we asked about this class action lawsuit, the company sent us
this statement:
"We are actively working on resolving every single past problem our
customers have had with Vision Solar. Not discussed in this class
action lawsuit is the fact that we have completed or have made
significant progress on the majority of the projects associated
with these customers indicated in the suit. We will continue to
work with each of them, and anyone else, who files a claim until
their projects are fully operational and they are satisfied or
through their request for cancellation."
The plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit are making claims for
restitution and damages, among other things, for their alleged
troubles. [GN]
VIXEN MEDIA: Retired Performer Files Labor Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin King, writing for Porn Crush, reports that retired performer
Kenzie Anne on Thursday filed a class action lawsuit against Vixen
Media Group, claiming the high-profile adult film studio abuses and
mistreats its performers by consistently violating California labor
code.
The lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained Friday by PornCrush, also
argues that Vixen performers should be classified as full-time
employees based on the influence and control the company attempts
to impose on the lives, bodies and careers of its talent—and also
because of the excessive amount of time they are often asked to
devote to projects without any additional compensation.
By instead listing them as independent contractors, the lawsuit
alleges, Vixen is denying its performers the "fair pay and
benefits" to which they'd be entitled as employees.
Anne's class action suit is believed to be the first in history
against a mainstream porn studio for misclassification of labor.
The lawsuit features parallels to a 2015 case involving a group of
exotic dancers who sued their strip club for similar mistreatment.
In that case, Salazar vs. Victory Entertainment, a judge in the
Court of Appeals in California ruled in favor of the dancers,
agreeing that they should indeed be classified as employees instead
of independent contractors.
Based on that precedent, if Anne's case is upheld, it could lead to
a significant payout by Vixen, not just to Anne, but to scores of
other performers who—knowingly or unknowingly—worked for Vixen
while labor codes were being violated. It could also spark
industry-wide change among studios regarding how they treat and
classify their talent.
Mike Miller, Vixen's Executive Producer, is explicitly named in the
suit along with Strike 3 Holdings and General Media Systems, both
Delaware-based LLCs that appear to be affiliated with the studio.
Anne, 30, is a former mainstream fashion model who had zero
experience in adult film when she signed an exclusive contract with
Vixen in November of 2020. Her first scene was released the
following April, and over the next two years, Anne shot
approximately 12 scenes for Vixen's various production banners.
In the lawsuit, Anne alleges her contract stipulated she be
available to work nights, holidays and weekends, with filming
sessions that "may take as long as ten hours." During the term of
the agreement, Anne was to "maintain" her "physical appearance,"
including Vixen Media Group's "reasonable personal grooming
requests." According to the lawsuit, if Anne wanted to change her
physical appearance, including obtaining a tattoo or piercing, she
was required to get written permission from VMG.
The lawsuit alleges that, even after the agreement, Anne had to
agree to promote Vixen Media Group's websites and brands on her
social media to the best of her abilities, at Vixen's direction and
under their guidelines and recommendations.
According to the lawsuit, when Anne requested her personnel file,
the company threatened to sue her because of purported losses
stemming from two medical infections that forced Anne to take a
break from shooting, including one from an "unauthorized plastic
surgery," an accusation Anne claims is false.
"Yet despite exercising control over every aspect of (Anne's)
body," the lawsuit reads, "including with whom she has sexual
intercourse, whether she may pierce her ear, obtain a cosmetic
surgery, or even miss time for an infection, Vixen Media Group
contends that it lacks sufficient control over (Anne) to be her
employer and thus declines to provide (Anne) with the pay and
benefits afforded to California employers."
Anne's lawsuit was filed in the Superior State of California for
the County of Los Angeles. Court records indicate Vixen Media Group
has been issued a summons, to which it has 30 days to respond.
An email to Emilie Kennedy, General Counsel for Strike 3 Holdings,
wasn't immediately returned Friday. Anne declined to comment
through Dave Rock, her agent with Motley Models. Attempts to
contact Anne's lawyer, David Bibiyan, through his office were
unsuccessful.
Anne shot more than 150 scenes in two years for various studios
before retiring earlier this month, telling PornCrush: "I loved my
time in the industry. I don't want to leave porn hating it. I don't
want to be one of those girls who is like, ‘Porn should be
illegal. It's terrible!' I had a great time. I got to learn about
myself sexually in a safe environment. I worked with great people
who have great attitudes who enjoy their jobs every day. Those are
the memories I want to take with me." [GN]
YORK COUNTY, PA: Inmates to Appeal Class Certification Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Enright, writing for York Dispatch, reports that the inmates
suing York County Prison, the county and its former training
contractor over alleged civil rights abuses are appealing a judge's
decision denying their effort to pursue class-action status.
Attorney Alan Denenberg, one of the attorneys representing the
plaintiffs, said they are continuing to seek justice.
"We believe it meets all requirements necessary to be certified on
behalf of all pretrial detainees and inmates," he said.
Matthew Clayberger, the lawyer representing the county and prison,
did not respond to a request for comment.
The inmate allegations stem from a March 2021 incident in which
prison staff and representatives from a training contractor
allegedly forced inmates to strip naked at gunpoint, march into the
gymnasium and stand against the wall for hours without access to
food or medical care. According to the lawsuit, inmates were also
allegedly threatened with a mock execution in which staff were told
to "lock, load and take aim" at them. One inmate reportedly had a
panic attack.
The lawsuit also alleges that Joseph Garcia, leader of Corrections
Special Applications Unit, or C-SAU, allegedly yanked the inmate
off the ground by his handcuffs and told the inmate that if he
continued to move or express fear, he would be shot in the head.
A default judgment was already issued against C-SAU and Garcia for
reportedly failing to respond to the lawsuit. York County, however,
continues to contest the allegations.
In his ruling earlier this year, Carlson found the inmates had not
met the sufficient prerequisites to file as a class-action.
"The plaintiffs' proposed class includes individuals 'who will be
incarcerated in York County Prison', meaning the injunctive relief
would be prospective and thus there would not be a finite universe
of potential class members," Carlson wrote. "Further there would be
no objective criteria to apply to determine the class."
One of the plaintiffs' arguments is that the abuses the defendants
allegedly subjected inmates to were to inmates as a group.
"Although the nature of the force used in each incident was
different, in each incident the dehumanizing torture was applied to
detainees/inmates as a pod or group, and not as unrelated
individuals as in Garris," the petition reads. "If the force used
was unconstitutional as to one detainee/inmate in the group, it was
unconstitutional to all of them."
Inmates sued the county, prison and C-SAU in December 2021, shortly
after York County unanimously approved a two-year, $252,770
contract for "confidential training" with C-SAU, which has garnered
controversy for its conduct.
The county would later agree with C-SAU to end the contract months
before it was up, while paying C-SAU an additional $43,500 for
equipment.
According to Allegheny County Jail Warden Orlando Harper, York was
one of two Pennsylvania counties that recommended C-SAU in 2021.
Allegheny County, however, subsequently barred its prison from
contracting with C-SAU over concerns about the program and Garcia.
Noelle Hanrahan, a private investigator hired by Allegheny County,
called Garcia "the Bernie Madoff of correctional consultants"
during an interview with The York Dispatch in 2021. Hanrahan's
report included information about time Garcia spent in a British
prison in the 1980s.
"You couldn't have done an inquiry without running into problems,"
Hanrahan said in the 2021 interview.
She added: "There were red flags on every single category that one
would check in a background check."
An earlier incarnation of C-SAU called the Corrections Special
Operations Group was the subject of an investigation following the
2021 death of an inmate in a Charleston, South Carolina, jail.
Although the two officers involved in that case were never
criminally charged, they were fired. The jail system settled with
the victim's family for $10 million.
At a NAACP candidate forum held Monday, President Commissioner
Julie Wheeler and Commissioner Doug Hoke, who serves as president
of the Prison Board of Inspectors, defended contracting with
C-SAU.
"The program has worked well over the years," Hoke said. "I think
the prison itself is on a good course. Our people have been
trained, we don't have the contractor anymore, and I think we're in
a good place."
For her part, Wheeler said the data backed up contracting with
C-SAU.
"We've seen a reduction in worker's compensation issues as well as
a reduction to injuries to the inmates," Wheeler said. [GN]
[*] U.S. Real Estate Industry Contends With Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian D. Koellish at thenewsenterprise.com reports that facing
accusations of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, the National
Association of Realtors and various brokerages have found
themselves the focus of a class action lawsuit. What exactly is the
issue? Well, it surrounds the idea of who exactly should compensate
the real estate agent assisting a buyer in the transaction.
Let's go back a century to understand how the real estate business
model works. When someone wants to sell their home, they employ a
real estate agent to find a willing and able buyer. The agent then
networks with other agents to see if they have a potential buyer.
In return for their participation in completing the transaction,
the agent who had the employment contract with the seller shares a
portion of their commission with the agent who brings the buyer to
the deal.
For anyone who has used a buyer's agent to buy a home, this is why
it appears the agent who helped you worked for free.
To give sellers maximum exposure to the broadest number of buyers,
all real estate agents join networks called Multiple Listing
Services, commonly called the MLS. The MLS allows listing agents to
share their listings and offer compensation to buyers' agents.
When a home is listed on the MLS, there is a unilateral commission
offer to the buyer's agent. This has become the point of contention
for the lawsuit.
First, let me state that there is no standard commission in the
real estate industry. If there were, that clearly would be an
anti-trust violation due to the lack of competition. Typically,
though, the commission is a percentage of the home's sale price.
Also, the commission offered to a buyer's agent could be either
50/50 of the total commission or variable, wherein one agent
receives more than the other.
The issue brought forward in the lawsuit is the offer to pay the
buyer's agent. The sellers represented in the lawsuit claim this
system puts pressure on them to offer higher commissions to the
buyer's agent. These higher commissions are not to attract the
buyer but the buyer's agent, increasing the cost of selling their
home.
If this lawsuit were to win, the entire business model would need
to change. On the face of the suit, it would appear buyers would
become responsible for paying for their agent. However, when you
factor in the amount of money needed for a down payment, loan fees,
closing costs, appraisals, taxes, insurance, etc., buying a home
takes a lot of cash. But what would happen to the affordability of
homes should the buyer now need several thousand more dollars to
pay for an agent?
Under current rules of a VA Home Loan, the veteran home buyer may
not pay any commissions to a real estate agent. Ironic that the
federal regulations for this loan contradict the federal lawsuit,
but that is beside the point.
If a veteran buyer can't pay their agent and a seller can't pay the
agent, what real estate agent will work for free? This lawsuit will
negate the amazing benefit our service members have earned in their
ability to buy homes.
With Fort Knox bringing numerous buyers every year, our housing
market would be severely hindered if they were to lose their buying
power.
This lawsuit is only in the beginning stages. No one knows how it
will turn out. But if the courts rule against the long-standing
tradition used to compensate the buyer's agent, there will be
ripples across the housing industry that will affect everyone.
Would sellers be charged a lower commission in the transaction?
Maybe. But they also likely will sell the home for less money while
it sits on the market longer.
As the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for."[GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***