/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/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 BANK OF AMERICA: Subramanian Withdrawn as Counsel in NBFPBF Suit BARCLAYS BANK: Subramanian Withdrawn as Counsel in Antitrust Suit BARCLAYS BANK: Subramanian Withdrawn as Counsel in Darby Suit BITESQUAD.COM LLC: Continues to Defend Jenson Class Suit BRAEMAR HOTELS & RESORTS: Labor Suits in California Courts Ongoing BROOKDALE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 ***