/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230427.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 27, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 85 Headlines ACTS RETIREMENT: Bid for Class Cert. Must be Filed by Oct. 16 ACUITY CHS: Delaware Court Narrows Data Breach Claims in Salas Suit ADORAMA INC: Faces Cantu Class Suit Over Video Privacy Claims ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Silver Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 10th Cir. ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Shnayder Suit Over Decline of Stock Price AMERICAN CENTURY: Rivers Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction AMICA MUTUAL: Lucas Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA: Eaton's Fraud Claim Dismissed W/o Prejudice BP EXPLORATION: Louisiana Court Dismisses Blackwell Oil Spill Claim BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Class Certification in Eddlemon Suit Vacated CORECIVIC INC: Barrientos Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial DIRECT ENERGY: Newman Suit Moved to Southern District of Texas DONOTPAY INC: Faces Class Suit Over ChatGPT Robot Lawyer DOORDASH INC: Lawson Sues Over Illegal Food Delivery Fees DPIRO LANDSCAPE: Fails to Properly Pay Landscapers, Torres Alleges EQUINE MEDICINE: VanderBoon Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Vet Techs GEO SECURE: Class Cert Hearing in Castillo Continued to August 2 GLASSES ARE US: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Boukai Suit Alleges HAPPY GROUP: Rusoff Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes HDR ENGINEERING INC: Bacani Suit Removed to C.D. California HENKEL CORPORATION: Waller Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HKM PINELLAS: Rohde Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ILLINOIS: Filing for Class Certification Extended to Sept. 12 ITS LOGISTICS: More Time to File Objections Sought J&R ADVENTURES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JAMES LEBLANC: Bid to Strike Class Cert Briefing Denied in Giroir JAMES LEBLANC: Bid to Strike Class Cert Briefing Denied in Humphrey KIA AMERICA: Fails to Disclose Windshield Defect, Ritzler Claims LOUISIANA: Seeks to Strike Giroir Supplemental Class Cert. Brief LOUISIANA: Seeks to Strike Supplemental Class Cert. Briefing LUSETA BEAUTY INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MADISON REED: Conidi Suit Removed to C.D. California MARA BEAUTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARATHON DIGITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 30 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Houck Seeks to Certify Patrol Lieutenant Class MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Pirani Sues Over 8.7% Drop of Stock Price MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges NABORS COMPLETION: Court Confirms Arbitration Award in Lopez Suit NEW YORK, NY: Case Management Order Entered in Local 5207 Suit NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Train Derailment Suit Appoints Lead Counsel PILOT CATASTROPHE: Pleasants Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PRO-HEALTH LLC: Rodriguez Sues Over Mass Layoffs Without Notice PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to July 17 QUEST DRILLING: Tinoco Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Laborers REALPAGE INC: Alvarez Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee REALPAGE INC: Navarro Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee REALPAGE INC: Pham Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee REALPAGE INC: Silverman Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee REALPAGE INC: Zhovmiruk Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee SEATTLE, WA: Faces Suit Over Sea-Tac Airport's Toxic Pollution SKYLER ZHANG: Class Cert. Bids Due Dec. 11 in Fields SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Lyngaas STUBHUB: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to June 5 in Refund Suit SUN US: General Pretrial Management Order Entered Polaris Suit SUPER-FARM ISRAEL: Settles Class Suit Over Empty Bottles Redemption THEATRE BOX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Browning Suit Alleges TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Doe Suit Remanded to L.A. County Superior Court TWITTER INC: Zeman Sues Over Older Employees' Discharge From Jobs ULTA SALON: Kabasele Loses Bid for Prelim. Approval of $1.5M Deal UMBRIA OLII INTERNATIONAL: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNCANNY BRANDS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNITED SURGICAL: Perkins Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Snyder Seeks to Certify 401(k) Plan Class UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Agrees to Settle Breach Class Suit for $5-M UOFL HEALTH INC: Blandford Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky VALERIE A. ARKOOSH: Daddazio Files ADA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania VARIEL SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arias Suit Alleges VERTEX ENERGY: Sells Securities at Inflated Prices, Passmore Says VITACOST.COM INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WEST END CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beck Alleges WHEELS UP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 19 WILMINGTON SAVINGS: Murray Files FDCPA Suit in D. Maryland XANADU MARKETING: Jenkins Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages XAVIER UNIVERSITY: Sanchez Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana ZHANGMEN EDUCATION: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Shareholder Suit ********* ACTS RETIREMENT: Bid for Class Cert. Must be Filed by Oct. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARA-AIMEE LONG CORRA et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACTS RETIREMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-02917-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), Hon. Judge Gene Pratter entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- On or before June 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs shall identify and submit curriculum vitae for all expert witnesses for class certification purposes and shall serve reports for all such expert witnesses. -- On or before July 20, 2023, the Defendants shall identify and submit curriculum vitae for all expert witnesses. -- Any motion for class certification shall be filed an served on or before October 16, 2023. Acts provides senior retirement care, supportive health, independent living, skilled nursing, and other related services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41oRQoi at no extra charge.[CC] ACUITY CHS: Delaware Court Narrows Data Breach Claims in Salas Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned as ASHLEY SALAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACUITY-CHS, LLC d/b/a COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-317-RGA (D. Del.). The case arises from a data breach. Plaintiff Ashley Salas used Defendant Acuity-CHS, LLC's services when she applied for a job at the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agency between late 2018 and early 2019, and again when she applied for a job at the Transportation Security Administration in 2021. As a part of the employment screening process, CHS administered medical examinations through a clinic in California. To receive those examinations, Ms. Salas gave CHS certain private information. CHS stored this information in its database. On Sept. 30, 2020, CHS was the victim of a cyberattack. Ms. Salas brings this putative class action on behalf of nationwide class comprises "all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach discovered on or about September of 2020 and who were sent notice of the Data Breach." Judge Andrews disagrees with the Defendants contention that Ms. Salas fails to meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Judge Andrews finds that unauthorized parties intentionally accessed Ms. Salas' data, which includes sensitive information, such as her Social Security number, birth date, and first and last name. Therefore, Ms. Salas has alleged an injury that is sufficiently imminent and substantial and is concrete enough for standing. Next, Judge Andrews turns to the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff's negligence claim is barred by Delaware's economic loss doctrine. The purpose of the economic loss doctrine is to preclude tort claims "where overlapping claims based in contract adequately address the injury alleged." As Ms. Salas does not argue that she has claimed a breach of duty independent of the contractual obligations central to her breach of contract claims, the economic loss doctrine bars Ms. Salas's negligence claims to the extent that her claims are for purely economic losses. Finally, Judge Andrews addresses Ms. Salas' second and third claims -- breach of express contract, and, in the alternative, a breach of implied contract. At the motion to dismiss stage, Ms. Salas may allege both claims as alternative theories of recovery. Judge Andrews finds Ms. Salas' allegations are not sufficient to allege a breach of express contract because she provides no detail as to the terms of the "HIPAA privacy notices and explanation of benefits documents." However, Judge Andrews concludes that Ms. Salas has sufficiently pled the existence of an implied contract when she alleges that: "Through their course of conduct, Defendant, Plaintiff, and Class members entered into implied contracts for the provision of health care services, as well as implied contracts for the Defendant to implement data security adequate to safeguard and protect the privacy of Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information." Ms. Salas also alleges that she paid money and gave her private information in exchange for CHS' services. Ms. Salas alleges that CHS has wrongfully retained the money that she paid in exchange for services that CHS did not provide -- by failing to adequately safeguard Ms. Salas' private information. As explained with regard to Ms. Salas's breach of implied contract claim, Judge Andrews believes that Ms. Salas has sufficiently alleged that the services she paid for included data security practices consistent with industry standards and compliant with relevant laws and regulations. As such, Judge Andrews will allow Ms. Salas to proceed with her claim of unjust enrichment as an alternative theory of recovery to her breach of contract claim. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated March 30, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/53262np8 from Leagle.com. ADORAMA INC: Faces Cantu Class Suit Over Video Privacy Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Adorama.com shared the video-viewing histories of website visitors with Google in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, a new proposed federal class action said. Jesse Cantu alleged that the photographic equipment provider installed the Google Analytics tracking tag on its websites, allowing it to transmit information to Google permitting it to "readily identify" his video-watching behavior. The VPPA prohibits providers of video content from disclosing customers' viewing habits to third parties without their consent, according to a complaint filed on April 18, 2023 in the US District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Silver Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 10th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff GERALD SILVER filed an appeal from the District Court's Order and Final Judgment dated March 8, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled GERALD SILVER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-CV-00400-MIS-GBW, in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico-Albuquerque. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, filed on May 26, 2022, is a purported class action wherein the Plaintiff alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) based on the Defendant's use of pre-recorded phone calls to convey information associated with virtual town hall meetings. The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support on July 27, 2022, arguing that the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On Aug. 23, 2022, it filed its Motion to Stay All Discovery Until Resolution of Defendant's Pending Motion to Dismiss, requesting a temporary stay of discovery pending the Court's resolution of its Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff filed his Response to the Defendant's Motion to Stay and Cross-Motion for an Initial Scheduling Order, or, in the Alternative, to Compel Defendant's Participation in a Rule 26(f) Conference on Aug. 24, 2022. The Defendant contends that a stay of discovery pending the resolution of its Motion to Dismiss is appropriate because its Motion to Dismiss, if granted, would dispose of the entire lawsuit, a stay of discovery would not prejudice the Plaintiff, and the case is a putative class action. On October 14, 2022, Chief Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth of the District of New Mexico entered an order: a. granting the Defendant's Motion to Stay All Discovery Until Resolution of Defendant's Pending Motion to Dismiss; and b. denying the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for an Initial Scheduling Order or to Compel Participation in a Rule 26(f) Conference. On March 8, 2023, Judge Margaret I. Strickland entered an Order and Final Judgment granting Defendant's motion to dismiss. The appellate case is captioned as Silver v. City of Albuquerque, Case No. 23-2058, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 11, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and entry of appearance were due on April 25, 2023 for Gerald Silver; and -- Notice of appearance was due on April 25, 2023 for City of Albuquerque.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant GERALD SILVER, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, is represented by: Carter B. Harrison, IV, Esq. HARRISON, HART & DAVIS 924 Park Avenue SW, Suite E Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 295-3261 Defendant-Appellee CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE is represented by: Mark T. Baker, Esq. Cerianne L. Mullins, Esq. PEIFER, HANSON, MULLINS & BAKER P.O. Box 25245 Albuquerque, NM 87125 Telephone: (505) 247-4800 ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Shnayder Suit Over Decline of Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------- GENNADY SHNAYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLBIRDS, INC., JOSEPH ZWILLINGER, TIMOTHY BROWN, MICHAEL BUFANO, NEIL BLUMENTHAL, DICK BOYCE, MANDY FIELDS, NANCY GREEN, DAN LEVITAN, EMILY WEISS, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., PIPER SANDLER & CO., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, TELSEY ADVISORY GROUP LLC, C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., DREXEL HAMILTON, LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, PENSERRA SECURITIES LLC, SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., and SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO. LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01811 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading statements to investors concerning Allbirds' November 2021 initial public offering (IPO) and/or Allbirds securities between November 4, 2021 and March 9, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Allbirds was overemphasizing products that extended beyond the company's core offerings; (2) that the company's non-core products had a narrower appeal and were not resonating with customers as well as the company's core products; (3) that Allbirds was underinvesting in its core consumers' favorite products to push the company's newer products with narrower appeal; (4) that underinvesting in Allbirds' core products was negatively impacting the company's sales; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the company's stock price fell $1.11, or 47 percent, to close at $1.25 per share on March 10, 2023, thereby injuring investors, says the suit. Allbirds, Inc. is a footwear and apparel company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an investment management company based in New York, New York. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is an investment management company based in New York, New York. BofA Securities, Inc. is an investment management company based in New York, New York. Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated is a multinational independent investment firm and financial services company, headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. William Blair & Company, L.L.C. is a multinational independent investment firm and financial services company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Piper Sandler & Co. is an independent investment firm and financial services company, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Cowen and Company, LLC is a multinational independent investment firm and financial services company, headquartered in New York, New York. Guggenheim Securities, LLC is a global investment and advisory financial services firm, headquartered in New York, New York. KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. is a capital market company based in Cleveland, Ohio. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated is a multinational independent investment firm and financial services company, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Telsey Advisory Group LLC is an investment firm and financial services company, headquartered in New York, New York. C.L. King & Associates, Inc. is an investment bank based in New York. Drexel Hamilton, LLC is a capital market company based in New York, New York. Loop Capital Markets LLC is a financial services company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Penserra Securities LLC is a capital market company located in New York, New York. Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc. is a capital market company based in New York, New York. Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC is a capital market company based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com AMERICAN CENTURY: Rivers Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's to dismiss the case, SAUNDRA RIVERS & TONI NORRIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. AMERICAN CENTURY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Civil Action No. 22-1476 (E.D. Pa.). The Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of life insurance policies issued by the Defendant ACLIC, whose claims for benefits after the deaths of their insured family members were denied on the grounds that misrepresentations were made in the insurance applications. Saunders is a resident of Texas and Norris is a Michigan resident. ACLIC is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Allen, TX. It allegedly engages in continuous and substantial business throughout the United States, including in Pennsylvania. Norris and Saunders were the named beneficiaries of ACLIC life insurance policies which were issued four and five years respectively before the deaths of their named insureds. In both cases, the insureds had regularly and promptly paid the premiums on their policies. Despite the clear language regarding the incontestability period, upon receipt of both claims following the deaths of their insureds, ACLIC refused to pay the benefits due to Saunders and Norris because the original policy applications purportedly contained "material misrepresentations." Alleging that ACLIC has a systemic policy of denying valid and incontestable claims, Saunders and Norris initiated the action on April 15, 2022, by filing a class action complaint on behalf of themselves and "all others similarly situated." The complaint raises state law claims for breach of contract (Count I), violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III), bad faith (Count IV), and declaratory judgment (Count V). ACLIC moves to dismiss the action under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) for lack of subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) for lack of venue. Because the Court found the Plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts concerning ACLIC's conduct to suggest the possible existence of the requisite contacts between it and this forum and that the amount in controversy could be satisfied, leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery was given. The time for taking discovery has since closed. The Plaintiffs argue that because ACLIC advertised and reached out to this great Commonwealth to make money and grow its business, it is subject to the Court's jurisdiction. Judge Sanchez holds that none of the evidence supports a finding that the necessary contacts between ACLIC and this forum exist to permit the constitutional exercise of specific or general personal jurisdiction over it by the Court. Although the Plaintiffs contend ACLIC has conceded it sells insurance products in Pennsylvania and the action is related to the Defendant's sale of insurance products, which it currently does in Pennsylvania, the scant evidence which they provide does not support these contentions. Saunders and Norris have failed to demonstrate their claims arise out of or relate to a specific forum-related activity on the part of ACLIC and thus cannot make the showing necessary to satisfy this three-step test. Hence, Judge Sanchez cannot find the Court possesses specific jurisdiction to act in the case and grants the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). Moreover, even had there been sufficient evidence of the necessary contacts, Judge Sanchez holds that the record does not support a finding that the amount in controversy has been met. The total on the claims is $365,000, excluding the premiums returned and accepted by the claimants. This is far below the $5 million threshold required for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. Accordingly, ACLIC's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is also granted. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvn2usdv from Leagle.com. AMICA MUTUAL: Lucas Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Wellington S. Lucas, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 230302886 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 17, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01462-JLS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Amica Mutual Insurance Company -- https://www.amica.com/ -- is a Rhode Island-based mutual insurance company that offers auto, home and life insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Haggerty, Esq. HGSK 1801 Market Street, Suite 100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 350-6633 Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com - and - John P. Goodrich, Esq. 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 261-4663 - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway, Second Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 772-7200 Email: ecf@shublawyers.com - and - Scott B. Cooper, Esq. SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 232-6300 Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com The Defendant is represented by: Brigid Quinn Alford, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 651-3710 Fax: (717) 651-3707 Email: bqalford@mdwcg.com ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA: Eaton's Fraud Claim Dismissed W/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRIAN CHRISTOPHER EATON, et al., Plaintiffs v. ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-3412 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the parties' Joint Motion for an Order Dismissing the Fraud Claim without Prejudice. Judge Sargus finds that justice requires removal of the fraud claim from this action. Accordingly, he deems the Plaintiff's First Consolidated Class Action Complaint to be amended to omit Claim Four for fraud without requiring the filing of a new complaint. This amendment, he says, will simplify the case going forward and has no effect on the prior class certification Opinion and Order, the pending motions for partial summary judgment, or the pending motion to modify the class definition or compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4fedn68z from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Louisiana Court Dismisses Blackwell Oil Spill Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, and motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c. in the case captioned as CHERRAE ADDI BLACKWELL v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (4), Civil Action No. 17-3490 (E.D. La.). The case is among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g., dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Carl J. Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this Court. The above cases were reassigned to Section R. Plaintiff Cherrae Addi Blackwell filed a lawsuit against the Defendants based on her alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff was allegedly involved in cleanup or recovery work after the oil spill and contends her resulting exposure to crude oil and dispersants caused a litany of health conditions. The Plaintiff brings claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms Plaintiff alleges in her complaint, she offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. In his June 21, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a "general causation approach to determine if some of the frequently reported health complaints are indeed from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work." On the other hand, the BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, Plaintiff is unable to carry her burden on causation. First, Judge Vance finds that "the June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered by the Plaintiff is unhelpful because of his inability to link any specific chemical that plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, at the level at which she was exposed, to the health conditions that she purportedly experiences. Because plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. Next, Judge Vance turns to the Plaintiff's Spoliation Motion. As other sections of this Court have observed, the Plaintiff identifies no source (statute, rule, or other dictate) imposing a duty on BP to conduct such monitoring and, by suggesting that monitoring was necessary to create evidence of exposure, concedes that no such evidence ever existed for BP to preserve. The remedy sought by the Plaintiff -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Because she finds no merit to the Plaintiff's Motion, she denies the Plaintiff's Motion. Lastly, since the Court has excluded testimony from Plaintiff's only expert offering an opinion on general causation, the Plaintiff cannot provide the required expert testimony on general causation. Judge Vance says that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her claims that her injuries were caused by exposure to oil. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of her claims against the Defendants, her claims must be dismissed. A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated March 30, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/27865c7y from Leagle.com. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Class Certification in Eddlemon Suit Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ORION EDDLEMON, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22-2560 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacates the district court's class certifications and remands for further proceedings. In March 2020, Bradley closed its campus and canceled inperson activities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The University also canceled one week of classes as it migrated to a remote learning format. While Bradley resumed classes virtually and began offering remote activities, events, and resources, the campus remained closed for the rest of the semester. The University never rescheduled the week of canceled classes. As a result, the Spring 2020 Semester was only fourteen weeks instead of the planned fifteen weeks of classes listed in Bradley's 2019-2020 Academic Catalog. For the Spring 2020 Semester, Bradley charged all full-time, on-campus students $17,100 in tuition and an $85 activity fee. While the University provided pro-rata refunds for room and board to students who were forced to leave their on-campus housing, it did not provide refunds for tuition or activity fees. Eddlemon alleges, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, that Bradley breached an implied contract to provide 15 weeks of classes in exchange for $17,100 in tuition and fifteen weeks of on-campus activities in exchange for an $85 activity fee. Alternatively, he alleges that the University's retention of tuition and activity fees constitutes unjust enrichment. On Eddlemon's motion, the district court certified two classes of all students during the Spring 2020 Semester "who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made," for tuition (the "Tuition Class") and activity fees (the "Activity Fee Class"). Bradley timely filed an interlocutory appeal of the Court's certifications. The Seventh Circuit reviews the district court's class certifications for an abuse of discretion, which can occur when the district court commits legal error. Bradley challenges the district court's analysis of the commonality and predominance requirements. Bradley argues that the district court did not conduct the required rigorous analysis when certifying the Tuition Class and the Activity Fee Class. It is correct that a district court must rigorously analyze the requirements of Rule 23. Indeed, certification is appropriate only if the district court does so. The Seventh Circuit finds that the district court did not conduct the rigorous analysis required by Rule 23. As such, it abused its discretion in certifying the Tuition and Activity Fee Classes. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit vacates the class certifications and remands so that the district court may apply the appropriate legal framework to the existing record. Bradley also contends that the district court inappropriately rejected its arguments regarding the adequacy of Eddlemon's proof as "more closely related to the merits" of Eddlemon's claims. While the Seventh Circuit disagrees with Bradley's position, to help inform the court's analysis on remand, it takes the opportunity to clarify the interplay between class certification and the merits of a plaintiff's case. Bradley acknowledges that Eddlemon submitted the 2020 Academic Catalog and the Student Activities Budget Review Committee Articles as support for the alleged contract between Bradley and its students but argues that these documents cannot prove the existence of a contract. However, any attempt to cast doubt upon the sufficiency of these documents to prove the alleged contractual promises goes to the merits of Eddlemon's claims, not to whether common questions exist and predominate. So, the district court did not err by rejecting Bradley's arguments regarding the sufficiency of Eddlemon's evidence. A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8a2wr2 from Leagle.com. CORECIVIC INC: Barrientos Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Wilhen Hill Barrientos, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated March 28, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CORECIVIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-CV-70 (CDL), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division. The Plaintiffs filed this suit on April 17, 2018 claiming that CoreCivic enlists detainees in a "voluntary work program" to provide cheap labor for operating Stewart, which enables CoreCivic to increase its profits. They further assert that CoreCivic uses coercive tactics to force the detainees to keep working, including (1) a "deprivation scheme" which threatens work program participants with serious harm if they refuse to work and (2) a practice of physically restraining work program participants who refuse to work. The Plaintiffs assert that after detainees join the work program, they are coerced to remain in the program because they are subject to physical restraint if they refuse to work. Detainees who are removed from the work program can no longer earn money to purchase items at Stewart's commissary. Refusal to work may result in discipline in addition to removal from the work program, including "lockdown" or "segregation," for refusing to work. The named Plaintiffs joined the work program to get extra food, and they remained in the program to keep getting extra food and to avoid discipline. The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3): a Forced Labor Class and an Unjust Enrichment Class. Both classes include all civil immigration detainees who participated in Stewart's "volunteer work program." The Forced Labor Class' claims are under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA",) 18 U.S.C. Section 1589 et seq., and the Unjust Enrichment Class's claims are under Georgia unjust enrichment law. On July 1, 2022, the Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order certifying two classes: -- the Forced Labor Class "All civil immigration detainees who performed work for CoreCivic at Stewart in the "Volunteer Work Program" starting ten years prior 1 to the date the original complaint was filed (April 17, 2018) until the date of final judgment in this matter;" -- the Unjust Enrichment Class "All civil immigration detainees who performed work for CoreCivic at Stewart in the "Volunteer Work Program" starting four years prior to the date the original complaint was filed (April 17, 2018) until the date of final judgment in this matter" As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Clay D. Land of the Middle District of Georgia entered an Order on March 28, 2023 denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and their motion for spoliation sanctions. Judge Land found that the Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that the class certification requirements are met for the two classes they seek to certify. He terminated as moot the motions to exclude experts. Given the Court's ruling on class certification, the only claims remaining in the action are the individual claims of the named Plaintiffs. The appellate case is captioned as Wilhen Hill Barrientos, Keysler Ramón Urbina Rojas, and Gonzalo Bermudez Gutiérrez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. CoreCivic, Inc., Defendant-Respondent, Case No. 23-90007, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on April 11, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Wilhen Hill Barrientos, Keysler Ramón Urbina Rojas, and Gonzalo Bermudez Gutiérrez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Meredith B. Stewart, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 486-898 - and - Rebecca M. Cassler, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1101 17th Ave. NW, Suite 705 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 - and - Cassandra Charles, Esq. Sharada Jambulapati, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 - and - Azadeh Shahshahani, Esq. PROJECT SOUTH 9 Gammon Avenue SE Atlanta, GA 30315 Telephone: (404) 622-0602 - and - Alan B. Howard, Esq. Emily B. Cooper, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-2711 Telephone: (212) 262-6848 DIRECT ENERGY: Newman Suit Moved to Southern District of Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HOLLY NEWMAN, Plaintiff v. DIRECT ENERGY, L.P., Defendant, Civil Case No. SAG-21-02446 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants Direct Energy's Motion to Transfer and transfers case to the Southern District of Texas. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action against Direct Energy, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Direct Energy is an energy company headquartered in Houston, Texas, providing services to customers nationwide. The Plaintiff alleges that Direct Energy routinely makes unsolicited and prerecorded telemarketing calls to the cellular telephones of prospective customers, even when those customers have not given their prior express consent to receive such calls. Specifically, she alleges that she received at least one, and possibly more than one, autodialed call from Direct Energy in January 2019. She further alleges that she has not ever been a Direct Energy customer and did not provide express consent to allow Direct Energy to call her cellular telephone with a prerecorded message. Newman sues on behalf of herself and as the representative of a putative class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which she defines as: All persons in Direct Energy's Northeast region to whom Defendant placed an artificial or prerecorded voice call, and who did not provide to Defendant the cellular phone number called, from four years prior to the date of this complaint through the date of class certification. In 2019, the Plaintiff's attorneys filed a putative class action against Direct Energy in the Southern District of Texas on behalf of another plaintiff, Brittany Burk. Burk v. Direct Energy, LP, Civ. No. 4:19-CV-663 (S.D. Tex.). The proposed putative class in that case was defined as: All persons in the United States who, between Dec. 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019 (1) received a non-emergency Direct Energy call; (2) to their cellular telephone numbers; (3) through the Teledrip dialing platform and/or a prerecorded voice. Following months of contested discovery and motions practice, the judge in that case denied Burk's motion to certify a nationwide class but allowed her individual claim to proceed. District Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. determined that Burk had failed to show that questions common to the class members predominated over individualized inquiries because of the individualized, fact-intensive disputes about consent that already permeate the record. Just four days after Judge Hanks's decision denying class certification, the same plaintiffs' counsel filed the instant action on behalf of the Plaintiff as representative of the more geographically limited but temporally expanded class described. District Judge George J. Hazel denied Direct Energy's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations, ruling that the Plaintiff should be entitled to discovery before the Court can properly consider whether class certification is appropriate and concluding the motion to dismiss unnamed putative class members based on personal jurisdiction was premature and should be filed after the class is certified. A few weeks later, Direct Energy filed the instant motion, seeking to transfer the case to the same federal court in Texas where the Burk case was litigated. The Plaintiff contends that Direct Energy forfeited its right to seek a change of venue by failing to raise the issue until after Judge Hazel decided its motion to dismiss. That argument, according to Judge Gallagher, lacks merit. While a party may waive a defense of improper venue by failing to raise it in a Rule 12(b) motion, she finds that Direct Energy makes no such argument and does not seek dismissal of the case on venue grounds. It simply seeks a transfer of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404, which is a motion that may be made at any time. Thus, Judge Gallagher proceeds to analyze the applicable factors governing transfer of venue. The parties appear to concede that venue lies both in the Court (because the Plaintiff allegedly received her call from Direct Energy in Maryland) and in the Southern District of Texas, the Defendant's primary place of business. The question, however, is whether a transfer of venue remains appropriate for the reasons set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1404. Judge Gallagher opines that (i) in addition to the well-founded concerns about forum shopping, because it is a class action case, the Plaintiff's choice of forum is afforded little weight; (ii) neither party presents an overwhelmingly persuasive case that there are meaningful differences in convenience between the two prospective venues; and (iii) transfer to that district remains warranted due to the jurisdictional concern, although the parties may potentially accrue some additional benefit as a result of Judge Hanks's familiarity. After weighing all of the factors that govern a transfer of venue, Judge Gallagher finds that the interest of justice factor is the most compelling. The court in the Southern District of Texas court can exercise general personal jurisdiction over Direct Energy as to the claims of all of the potential class members. Litigating the case in that district, then, would further judicial efficiency and serve the public interest in a manner that considerably outweighs the right of a plaintiff to choose the forum of a class action, particularly in a case presenting indicia of forum shopping. Judge Gallagher, accordingly, grants Direct Energy's motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas. A separate Order effecting the transfer follows. A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/45krwey5 from Leagle.com. DONOTPAY INC: Faces Class Suit Over ChatGPT Robot Lawyer -------------------------------------------------------- Tom Jarvis of Ink Link reports that in recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has been swiftly permeating the legal world. Legal research tools like Westlaw and LexisNexis have used a type of AI called Natural Language Processing (NLP) for more than a decade, and now ChatGPT has passed the bar exam. But when I first heard the term "robot lawyer," I just had to find out what that was all about. Enter DoNotPay, a New York-based tech company that dubbed itself the "world's first robot lawyer." As a child of the '80s - when I heard about a possible robot lawyer - I recalled several science fiction films that featured "futuristic" technology like self-driving cars, video calls, and military drones, which have all come true. This line of thought inevitably brought to mind the film, The Terminator, and its tech corporation, Cyberdyne Systems, which was responsible for the development of Skynet, a self-aware AI bent on eradicating humanity. I envisioned an Arnold Schwarzenegger lookalike wearing a suit bursting through the courtroom doors, which called to mind some questions: Would his titanium alloy endoskeleton set off the metal detectors? When court breaks for recess, will he say, "I'll be back?" However, after a bit of research, I learned that DoNotPay's robot lawyer is just a legal service chatbot (aka lawbot) app, and its creator pulled a publicity stunt on Twitter. DoNotPay CEO and founder, Joshua Browder, created the company in 2015 as a web-based software to help consumers contest parking tickets. It later became an app that adopted the use of the GPT-3 platform - which has become a hot topic as of late with OpenAI's use of the platform with ChatGPT - and expanded to include other legal services, such as generating demand letters and tracking down money from unclaimed inheritances and forgotten refunds. The landing page of the DoNotPay website boasts they can help consumers "fight corporations, beat bureaucracy, find hidden money, and sue anyone." In January 2023, Browder announced that on February 22, DoNotPay's "robot lawyer" would represent a defendant fighting a parking ticket in an actual courtroom. Through the use of Apple AirPods in the defendant's ears, the AI would listen to the case and provide real-time advice to its client. A few days later, Browder took to Twitter to raise the stakes with the following statement: "DoNotPay will pay any lawyer or person $1,000,000 with an upcoming case in front of the United States Supreme Court to wear AirPods and let our robot lawyer argue the case by repeating exactly what it says. We have upcoming cases in municipal (traffic) court next month. But the haters will say 'traffic court is too simple for GPT.' So, we are making this serious offer, contingent on us coming to a formal agreement and all rules being followed. Please contact me if interested! " Browder's plans never came to fruition, though. In late January, he Tweeted that he was pulling the plug after receiving "threats" from "State Bar prosecutors." He claimed one of the prosecutors told him that if he proceeded, he could face six months of jail time for the unauthorized practice of law. He later told the Twitterverse that the company is "postponing our court case and sticking to consumer rights." Attorney John Weaver, who wrote a book called, Robots Are People Too: How Siri, Google Car, and Artificial Intelligence Will Force Us to Change Our Laws, says he doesn't think robot lawyers will become a thing anytime soon. Weaver is on the Board of Editors for RAIL: The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law and writes a column, "Everything Is Not Terminator." "People are overestimating what it [AI software] can do in the next two years and underestimating what it can do in the next ten," Weaver says. "But I suspect that leap from using technology as an assistant in court to actually licensing attorneys that are not human beings is going to be a bridge too far for the foreseeable future." Weaver says there are a lot of ways using software like DoNotPay for legal services could go wrong. "Chef's kiss as a publicity stunt - very well done," Weaver says of DoNotPay's robot lawyer scheme. "But I would say there's a word of caution - lessons from this story for two groups. One, for bar associations and courts, there's a certain population where these services and products are appealing. Courts and bar associations should think about how they want to respond to that. The other cautionary tale is for the consumers that use these to think carefully about the quality of the service or representation they are receiving. What data is being used to train it? Do the parties behind these services and applications have ulterior motives? Are they really in the business of providing legal services or are the legal services they claim to provide just a loss leader to fund and support their actual business model?" On March 3, Chicago-based law firm, Edelson PC, filed a complaint against DoNotPay in San Francisco Superior Court, seeking a class action lawsuit. The complaint, filed on behalf of former DoNotPay customer, Jonathan Faridian, alleges the company is practicing law without a license and that it misleads the public with respect to its services. In the complaint, Attorney Jay Edelson says, "Unfortunately for its customers, DoNotPay is not actually a robot, a lawyer, nor a law firm. DoNotPay does not have a law degree, is not barred in any jurisdiction, and is not supervised by any lawyer." Browder denies any wrongdoing and says he will vigorously fight the lawsuit. He subsequently took to Twitter once again saying Faridian's claims have "no merit," and that DoNotPay is "not going to be bullied by America's richest class action lawyer." "This is just a guy playing PT Barnum with something, and it sounds like it backfired on him," Attorney Kirk Simoneau says. "I don’t think we are close to Skynet." Simoneau is all for AI that helps with more immediate access to information, such as Westlaw with its NLP, but for certain practice areas like his own that involve persuasion and being in court, he believes the effectiveness of AI starts to wane. "Here's a really good example," Simoneau says. "I was at the law school this morning with the Webster Scholars. We do a training every year on the DOVE Project and on April 19, 2023 was the day the students presented their cases. They had a pretend trial, pretend witnesses, the whole shooting match. All those students had the exact same information. They were all given the same intelligence - if you will - the same law, the same statutes, the same exact fact pattern, the same cases. Every single one of those students presented it differently and with different levels of effectiveness. Simoneau adds, "AI can be super helpful in the legal profession to quickly search through every case that's out there for the relevant precedence. But then what do I do with it? I don't think machine learning and AI are going to be able to take over the 'what you do with it' part very effectively." In the personal injury field, people have been using AI for decades with a system called Colossus. The program uses algorithms to look for prior verdicts and uses them to place a value on the injury. "The computer program says, 'well, your client has a broken arm? Here is what the broken arm is worth - we are going to pay you based on what the medical costs are across the country.' It's all AI-driven," Simoneau says. "But what does the computer do when you say, 'well, wait a minute. My client with a broken arm is deaf, and they use their arm to communicate using sign language.' The computer program doesn't know what to do with that." As for me, I'm just happy that the robot lawyer is not programmed for terminations, so humanity is safe…for now. [GN] DOORDASH INC: Lawson Sues Over Illegal Food Delivery Fees --------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges the onslaught of fees levied by DoorDash on food orders has bilked millions of consumers out of billions of dollars each year as the company exploits struggling restaurants and a largely immigrant workforce. The sprawling 81-page lawsuit charges that although the mobile food-delivery platform has in its decade of existence engaged in a slew of "heavy-handed," predatory tactics toward its contractors and merchants, the company has ultimately taken advantage of consumers, including children, who use its platform by charging "misleading, premium, and hidden fees." In particular, the complaint alleges DoorDash, which boasts roughly 32 million users, has misrepresented its delivery fees, express or priority delivery fees and "expanded range" delivery fees such that consumers have no idea that the platform keeps every one of these revenue-driving fees for itself. According to the suit, the slew of fees assessed by DoorDash, unbeknownst to the public and despite the company's uniform representations, “have nothing to do with deliveries” and are never passed on to delivery drivers, known as "Dashers." Underlying the litany of fees consumers know about are allegedly "hidden" marketing fees on promotional items and commission fees that, despite what DoorDash represents to restaurants, are ultimately paid by consumers, the case adds. "DoorDash is committing a massive fraud," the lawsuit scathes, accusing the company of effectively depriving consumers of their money and the opportunity to make an informed decision about which technology to use when ordering food. The filing goes on to allege that DoorDash directly and unfairly targets minors by advertising on TV and social media to encourage young people to use its service. In practice, DoorDash has neither age verification procedures nor parental controls, making it so easy for a child to use the platform that a two-year-old reportedly ordered 31 burgers through the app, the lawsuit says. Lastly, the case contests that DoorDash "believes it is effectively bulletproof" against consumer disputes thanks to its terms and conditions, which the complaint calls "the foundation of its illegal pricing practices." These terms and conditions, which allegedly obscure DoorDash's predatory pricing model under a veil of dense legalese, altogether strip consumers of any protections against misconduct, the suit says. "In effect, DoorDash uses its Terms and Conditions as a shield and sword to carry out its deception," the case summarizes, noting that a consumer’s only recourse against the platform is to "sue in secret arbitration, on an individual basis," while handcuffed by a six-month statute of limitations. The proposed class action seeks monetary damages of no less than $1 billion on behalf of consumers who "fell prey to DoorDash's illegal pricing scheme." Suit alleges "hidden," "misleading" DoorDash fees are backbone of fraudulent pricing scheme. As the lawsuit tells it, consumers must contend with pricing practices from DoorDash that are "unsettling" to say the least, as the bevy of fees the platform charges serve as the company's primary revenue driver. For one, DoorDash levies on some orders a "city" or regulatory response fee that consumers are led to believe is imposed by the local government. In truth, DoorDash assesses this fee “in part to circumvent limitations on food commissions in certain areas,” such as pandemic-related caps on delivery fees, the lawsuit claims. In another instance, DoorDash, despite "[disavowing] that it provides any delivery service whatsoever," nevertheless charges a range of "deceptive and misleading" delivery fees that the company claims vary depending on a consumer and a restaurant's location. Though the platform purports that these fees "help cover the cost associated with getting your order directly to you," leading users to believe the charges will be passed along to Dashers, DoorDash pockets all delivery fees to offset the cost of operating its platform. Per the case, the company manipulates these fees "at its whim" in order to induce consumers into ordering food at a low delivery cost while “raising fees in other areas,” the lawsuit charges. "The Delivery Fee is nothing more than a deceitful sales gimmick that is part of a fraudulent bait-and-switch pricing model," the filing alleges, claiming the delivery fees exist solely for DoorDash to sell subscriptions to its "DashPass" program, which affords a subscriber discounted delivery fees in exchange for a flat monthly fee. Further still, although DoorDash claims to have no control over the "manner and means" of delivery routes, the company nevertheless charges an express or priority fee for delivering "direct to you," the suit says. Dashers, however, are never informed that a consumer has paid extra for "priority" delivery, and as a result these purportedly "express" delivery orders take as long as a standard order to arrive on a customer's doorstep, the suit says. In addition, DoorDash further "manipulates" consumers by way of posting "estimated delivery windows." The filing alleges that DoorDash uses an algorithm that advertises shorter delivery windows so as to mislead consumers into believing that their food will arrive sooner. DoorDash also hits consumers with an "expanded range delivery" fee on orders "outside of [their] normal delivery area," the filing says. In truth, however, DoorDash never creates a "normal delivery area" for each customer and instead creates such regions around restaurants based on their particular service plan with the platform, i.e., how much they pay DoorDash, according to the case. And DoorDash will send certain consumers' orders (like low-cost McDonald's orders) to restaurant locations further from the consumer's home (bypassing closer locations), triggering the expanded range fee and 'justifying' increased delivery costs." DoorDash allegedly applies these expanded-range fees "disingenuously" to customers with DashPass accounts. If a DashPass account and a standard account place the same order at the same time from the same restaurant for delivery to the same home, DoorDash will occasionally charge the DashPass account -- but not the standard account -- an expanded-range fee, the filing says. "Upon information and belief, DoorDash charges DashPass accounts the expanded range delivery fee to subsidize lost revenues from discounted fees under the DashPass program," the suit claims. Broadly, DoorDash users, either during sign-up or otherwise, are not afforded the benefit of a clear explanation of the platform's fees, the details of which can be found "in oddly placed informational tabs" designed to discourage users from looking any further, the complaint relays. To get the full picture of DoorDash's "unquestionably deceitful, deceptive, and misleading" fee structure, a consumer must essentially piece together statements from the company's legal terms with "other admissions buried in various placed in its website," the filing says. Case claims DoorDash saddles consumers with hidden marketing, commissions fees The complaint goes on to allege that DoorDash advertises menu item promotions that include hidden fees that the customer, unbeknownst to them, ends up paying. For this particular "scheme," the lawsuit says, DoorDash explains to restaurants -- but not to consumers -- that menu item promotions are meant to help attract customers and can be targeted to certain users based on several criteria. Importantly, DoorDash tells restaurants that they'll pay for the item or discount offered to customers in addition to a $0.99 "marketing fee," the case states. In reality, however, it's the consumer, not the restaurant, who ends up paying extra since this undisclosed "marketing fee" is ultimately wrapped into the menu price for a promotional item, a price "that is charged to and paid by consumers only," the filing claims. "Consumers pay for DoorDash's undisclosed $0.99 Marketing Fee on promotional items without ever knowing the hidden charge was included as part of a 'promotion,'" the suit summarizes. If that weren't enough, embedded into every DoorDash order are undisclosed "commissions" that, according to the lawsuit, "are truly nothing more than another hidden fee that consumers pay." Per the suit, these commissions range from 20 percent to 29 percent on delivery orders and eight percent to 10 percent on pickup orders. Though DoorDash, again, explains to restaurants how all this works, consumers are ultimately left holding the bag given that the "commission" supposedly covers an array of "contrived delivery and other costs," including hidden credit card processing surcharges on customer transactions, the suit claims. "Regardless [of] how DoorDash frames the issue, DoorDash charges a Commission Fee on each order that consumers pay and DoorDash collects and retains the payment without ever informing the consumer, including payments for credit card surcharges […]," the lawsuit reads. "This approach represents the essence of deception and fraud." Terms and conditions not as ironclad as DoorDash believes, case contends The case minces no words in alleging that DoorDash's terms and conditions "transform recognized liability avoidance into illegal liability evasion." Per the lawsuit, the terms and conditions force consumers to waive their right to trial and prohibit them from proceeding with disputes as a class while drastically slashing the applicable time limit on claims from "years to mere months." Moreover, the right to certain kinds of relief -- namely the kind that could prohibit DoorDash from engaging in certain practices -- is wholly restricted by the company's terms and conditions, the case argues. Ultimately, consumers looking to use DoorDash have no choice but to indemnify the company entirely for all liability in every respect, the suit relays, claiming Dashers and restaurants are hampered by similarly restrictive contracts with the platform. However, although DoorDash believes based on a "fundamentally flawed position" that it has crafted "the perfect predatory pricing scheme," the lawsuit says, its terms and conditions are unenforceable given consumers are never told that their use of the platform amounts to a binding contract, never affirmatively agree to the terms, or are minors who lack the capacity to enter into a binding contract without parental consent. "Absent an enforceable contract, DoorDash must answer for its actions before this Court with respect to its delivery fee, priority delivery fee, expanded range delivery fee, hidden marketing fee, and hidden commission fee," the lawsuit asserts. Lawsuit: DoorDash has a "history of unsavory business practices" against drivers, restaurants DoorDash's roughly 10 years of existence is replete with "predatory tactics" toward all parties who use the platform, the case alleges. For instance, in 2020, DoorDash ended up settling for $2.5 million allegations that it illegally retained Dashers' tips in order to pad its bottom line, the filing notes. Although DoorDash now purports to pay Dashers the entire tip amount they're owed, the lawsuit claims the platform holds onto drivers' daily pay on each order "for a week." If a DoorDash driver wants to receive their compensation on the same day it's earned, they must pay the company a "Fast Pay" fee to release the funds, the suit says, alleging essentially that no matter whether a driver is paid daily or a week after they've earned their wages, DoorDash stands to make money in either fees or interest. The company, which allegedly targets immigrants to work as drivers, knows that many Dashers have no choice but to pay the Fast Pay fee given that they "need money desperately, " the complaint shares. Restaurants who work with DoorDash share an experience similar to that of Dashers as the platform holds a restaurant's earnings on each order for a week unless the merchant either pays a fee to receive the money earlier or enrolls in a premium service to receive those funds "without charge," the case explains. Ultimately, DoorDash's pay structure cuts restaurants' profit margins on food orders, forcing them to pass on hidden fees to customers in the form of increased prices, the case summarizes. In effect, DoorDash earns millions, if not more, strong-arming drivers and merchants (and forcing them to capitulate to DoorDash's questionable billing tactics), while consumers bear the unsettling burden of the increased cost from the hidden fees." Who's covered by the lawsuit? The case looks to represent everyone in the United States who, within the relevant statute of limitations period, established a DoorDash account and placed an order using either the DoorDash app or DoorDash.com and paid a delivery fee, express (or priority) delivery fee and/or an extended range delivery fee and/or who bought a promotional item that included a hidden marketing fee and/or who bought a menu item that included a hidden commission fee, and/or anyone who paid any combination of these fees. I use DoorDash. How do I get involved? When a proposed class action is initially filed, there's usually nothing you need to do to join or add your name to the case. It's only if and when a lawsuit settles that the people covered by the allegations -- called class members -- need to act, which typically involves filling out and filing a claim form online or by mail. (If you're covered by a particular settlement, it's possible that you'll receive direct notice about it.) However, we may have a long way to go. Cases like this can take months or even years to pass through the legal process. If you use or work for (or with) DoorDash, or simply want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuit and settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] DPIRO LANDSCAPE: Fails to Properly Pay Landscapers, Torres Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DPIRO LANDSCAPE, LLC and RICHARD DPIRO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02772 (E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to provide wage notice. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a landscaper and laborer from 2009 until August 13, 2022. Dpiro Landscape, LLC is a landscaping company, with its principal place of business at 159-52 82nd Street, Howard Beach, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 EQUINE MEDICINE: VanderBoon Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Vet Techs --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE VANDERBOON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUINE MEDICINE AND SURGERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00490 (W.D. La., April 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated full-time employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. Ms. VanderBoon works for the Defendant as a Vet Tech at its facilities in Kentucky and Louisiana from approximately July 2021 until December 2022. Equine Medicine and Surgery, LLC is a company that offers equine medical care, headquartered in Bossier City, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Hwy., Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-700 E-mail: phil@borhrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com GEO SECURE: Class Cert Hearing in Castillo Continued to August 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Castillo v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00445 (S.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to continue the hearing date on the Plaintiff's class certification. -- The hearing date on the Plaintiff's class certification motion is continued to August 26, 2023. -- Per chambers rules, there will be no oral argument on the motion, unless separately ordered by the Court. -- The Defendant is permitted to file a five-page supplement to its opposition solely about the impact of the Perez matter on the Plaintiff's motion. -- The Plaintiff is likewise permitted to exceed the page limit for her reply brief by five pages solely to discuss the impact of the Perez matter on her class certification motion. The nature of suit states civil rights -- employment. GLASSES ARE US: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Boukai Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- FARAH BOUKAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLASSES ARE US, INC.; GLASSES ARE US 2 INC.; and ROMAN MOSTOVOY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02874 (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages, pre and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Boukai was employed by the Defendants as a staff. GLASSES ARE US, INC. offers and sells eyewear products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Anthony Wolff, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor, Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-1627 Email: JWolff@saccofillas.com HAPPY GROUP: Rusoff Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN RUSOFF, et al., v. THE HAPPY GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-08084-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed Classes: -- California Class "All natural persons who purchased at least one carton of The Happy Group, Inc.'s eggs at a retail store in California, at any time from May 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, with a carton that stated "Pasture Raised on Over 8 Acres.;" and -- New York Class "All natural persons who purchased at least one carton of The Happy Group, Inc.’s eggs at a retail store in New York, at any time from May 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, with a carton that stated "Pasture Raised on Over 8 Acres. " The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an Order designating them as representatives for the Classes, and appointing Aubry Wand of the Wand Law Firm, P.C. and Robert Abiri of Custodio & Dubey, LLP, as Class counsel. The Plaintiffs further move the Court to order the parties to meet and confer and present to the Court, within fourteen days of an order granting class certification, a proposed notice to the certified Classes. Happy Group is a for-profit human resources advocacy and business management consultancy. We aid companies experiencing human resources difficulties. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41B68lv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 593-9095 E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com - and - Aubry Wand, Esq. THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 199 Oceangate, Suite 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 590-4503 E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com HDR ENGINEERING INC: Bacani Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Norma Bacani, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HDR Engineering, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2301360 was removed from the Riverside County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00681-JFW-KK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. HDR, Inc. -- http://www.hdrinc.com/-- is an employee-owned design firm, specializing in engineering, architecture, environmental, and construction services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com - and - Joshua Samson Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite No 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (818) 456-6168 Fax: (888) 505-0868 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Hazel U. Poei, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Fax: (213) 689-0430 Email: hazel.poei@jacksonlewis.com - and - Vincent Lloyd Chen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Fax: (949) 885-1380 Email: Vincent.Chen@jacksonlewis.com HENKEL CORPORATION: Waller Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Valerie Waller, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated v. Henkel Corporation, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 23SL-CC01171 was removed from the St. Louis County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on April 17, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00486-SEP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Henkel AG & Co. KGaA -- https://www.henkel.com/ -- commonly known as Henkel, is a German multinational chemical and consumer goods company headquartered in Dusseldorf, Germany.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Harvath, Esq. HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC 75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1 St. Louis, MO 63119 Phone: (314) 550-3717 Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael L. Jente, Esq. C. David Goerisch, Esq. LEWIS RICE LLC - St. Louis 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 444-7683 Email: mjente@lewisrice.com dgoerisch@lewisrice.com HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03114 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals -- https://hitechpharma.com/ -- is a leading global healthcare supplier that develops, manufactures and distributes over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription pharmaceuticals, nutritional products, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) and consumer products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com HKM PINELLAS: Rohde Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------- Natalie Rohde, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HKM PINELLAS LLC d/b/a HAMBURGER MARY'S CLEARWATER, Case No. 8:23-cv-00829 (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA") against the Defendant's denial of federal and state minimum wages for the Plaintiff. The Defendant committed federal and state minimum wage violations because it failed to pay its servers the requisite reduced wage under Florida law; failed to provide servers with state and federally mandated notice of tip credit requirements; claimed a tip credit for all hours servers worked, including workweeks wherein the total amount of time that servers spent performing non-tipped duties and side work was at or in excess of 20% of all of the total work performed; claimed a tip credit during shifts when servers were required to spend more than 30 continuous minutes on side work and other non-tipped duties; and required servers to share their tips with supervisors and/or managers at the restaurant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a server in August 2022. The Defendant owned, operated, and controlled the restaurant located in Clearwater, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Jake S. Blumstein, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 871-0050 Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com ILLINOIS: Filing for Class Certification Extended to Sept. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kainz, et al., v. Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250 (C.D. Ill.), Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery order: -- Class discovery is extended to: July 14, 2023 -- Deadline to file motion for class Sept. 12, 2023 certification is extended to: The Court additionally grants the motion to withdraw as attorney and attorney Elizabeth Silker is terminated as counsel for record for the Defendant. The nature of suit states civil rights -- Employment Discrimination. IDOC is the code department of the Illinois state government that operates the adult state prison system.[CC] ITS LOGISTICS: More Time to File Objections Sought -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH GUTHRIE, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v. ITS LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Company, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-00729-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations Recommending Denial of Motion for Preliminary Approval Without Prejudice entered on April 5, 2023. The Plaintiff Keith Guthrie and The Defendant ITS Logistics, request the Court for an order continuing the deadline to file objections that is currently set for April 19, 2023 to April 28, 2023. 1. The Findings and Recommendations were entered on April 5, 2023 and direct that the parties should file any Objections to them by April 19, 2023. 2. The Plaintiff’s Counsel joins in this request for a brief extension of the deadline to file the Objections. Its Logistic is a provider of third-party logistics and supply chain management services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40gSjHN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Mankin, Esq. Misty M. Lauby, Esq. LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP 4590 Allstate Drive Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 320-1444 Facsimile: (951) 320-1445 E-mail: brian@lmlfirm.com misty@lmlfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq. Angela S. Cash, Esq. Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq. Jared S. Kramer, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 Facsimile: (317) 687-2414 E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com acash@scopelitis.com cmcnatt@scopelitis.com jkramer@scopelitis.com J&R ADVENTURES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J&R Adventures, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J&R Adventures, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03117 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. J&R Adventures, LLC -- https://www.jr-adventures.com/ -- is an independent record lable founded by Joe Bonamassa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com JAMES LEBLANC: Bid to Strike Class Cert Briefing Denied in Giroir ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Giroir v. LeBlanc, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00108 (M.D. La.), Hon. Judge John W. Degravelles entered an order denying the motion to strike supplemental class certification briefing and exhibits. However, to mitigate any prejudice the Defendant may have suffered from Plaintiff's briefing, the Defendant may file a response, not to exceed 10 pages, the Court says. The Defendant's response should be limited to new arguments raised by Plaintiff. No further briefing will be allowed, absence leave of Court and for extraordinary reasons, the Court adds. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] JAMES LEBLANC: Bid to Strike Class Cert Briefing Denied in Humphrey ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Humphrey v. LeBlanc, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233 (M.D. La.), Hon. Judge John W. Degravelles entered an order denying the motion to strike supplemental class certification briefing and exhibits. However, to mitigate any prejudice the Defendant may have suffered from Plaintiff's briefing, the Defendant may file a response, not to exceed 10 pages, the Court says. The Defendant's response should be limited to new arguments raised by Plaintiff. No further briefing will be allowed, absence leave of Court and for extraordinary reasons, the Court adds. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] KIA AMERICA: Fails to Disclose Windshield Defect, Ritzler Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARET RITZLER, HANK HERBER, LINDA WILBUR, THOMAS ROCCO, JERRY DUBOSE, APRIL FISHER, and TEWANA NELSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIA AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00639-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal., April 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied and express warranties, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violations of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, the Texas Deceptive Practices Act, and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of 2020-2023 Kia Telluride vehicles with defective windshields. The windshield defect poses an extreme safety hazard to drivers, passengers, and pedestrians because the spontaneously cracking Class Vehicle windshields impair the driver's view, distract the driver, and can result in dislodged glass that can injure drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. Despite the Defendant's knowledge of the defect, Kia failed to disclose and conceals the defect from purchasers and lessees. Had the Plaintiffs and the Class Members known about the defect, they would not have purchased the Class vehicles or would have paid substantially less for them, says the suit. Kia America, Inc. is automobile manufacturer with a principal place of business at 111 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. Lemberg Law, LLC 1100 West Town & Country Rd., Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (480) 247-9644 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com LOUISIANA: Seeks to Strike Giroir Supplemental Class Cert. Brief ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL GIROIR, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, v. JAMES LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Case No. 3:21-cv-00108-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Defendant moves the Court to strike the impermissible and untimely supplemental briefing on class certification submitted by the Plaintiff in his "Brief Regarding Class Certification," as well as additional evidence offered in support of its motion for class certification. Accordingly, it is requested that all argument contained within the Plaintiff's "Brief Regarding Class Certification Hearing," that contains any argument related to the class certification issue that does not specifically respond to the Court's Order, and all exhibits offered in support of that brief, should be stricken. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections is a state law enforcement agency responsible for the incarceration of inmates and management of facilities at state prisons within the state of Louisiana. The agency is headquartered in Baton Rouge. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oq6AVe at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher K. Jones, Esq. Blanchfield, T.A., Esq. Christopher K. Jones., Esq. Chelsea A. Payne., Esq. SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL 701 Main Street (70802) Post Office Box 1151 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Telephone: (225) 383-3796 Facsimile: (225) 343-9612 E-mail: ablanchfield@keoghcox.com cjones@keoghcox.com cpayne@keoghcox.com LOUISIANA: Seeks to Strike Supplemental Class Cert. Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, v. JAMES LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Defendant moves the Court to strike the impermissible and untimely supplemental briefing on class certification submitted by the Plaintiff in his "Brief Regarding Class Certification," as well as additional evidence offered in support of its motion for class certification. Accordingly, it is requested that all argument contained within the Plaintiff's "Brief Regarding Class Certification Hearing," that contains any argument related to the class certification issue that does not specifically respond to the Court's Order, and all exhibits offered in support of that brief, should be stricken. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections is a state law enforcement agency responsible for the incarceration of inmates and management of facilities at state prisons within the state of Louisiana. The agency is headquartered in Baton Rouge. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41hImLu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher K. Jones, Esq. Blanchfield, T.A., Esq. Christopher K. Jones., Esq. Chelsea A. Payne., Esq. SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL 701 Main Street (70802) Post Office Box 1151 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Telephone: (225) 383-3796 Facsimile: (225) 343-9612 E-mail: ablanchfield@keoghcox.com cjones@keoghcox.com cpayne@keoghcox.com LUSETA BEAUTY INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luseta Beauty Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Luseta Beauty Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03161 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Luseta -- https://lusetabeauty.com/ -- offers salon-quality natural hair care products infused with extensive selections of natural ingredients from around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com MADISON REED: Conidi Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jennifer Conidi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Madison Reed, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV04522 was removed from the Superior Court of CA, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02823 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Madison Reed -- https://www.madison-reed.com/ -- is a beauty company revolutionizing the way women color their hair.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Jessica Wahl, Esq. SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 285-8330 Fax: (424) 204-9093 Email: jwahl@shb.com MARA BEAUTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mara Beauty, LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Mara Beauty, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03153 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MARA Beauty -- https://themarabeauty.com/ -- is a line of non-toxic, clean, natural algae face oils, face masks and cleansers created by founder Allison McNamara.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com MARATHON DIGITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm PA of GlobeNewsWire reports that Rosen Law Firm reminds purchasers of the securities of Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA) between May 10, 2021 and February 28, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 30, 2023 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Marathon 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 Marathon class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3108 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 May 30, 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. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. 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: The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Marathon's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Marathon overstated the efficacy of its disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a result, Marathon's revenues and cost of revenue were materially misstated during the Class Period; (3) the foregoing, once revealed, was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Marathon's financial condition; and (4) as a result, Marathon'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 Marathon class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3108 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. 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] MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Houck Seeks to Certify Patrol Lieutenant Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher J. Houck, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, v. Maricopa County, Case No. 2:23-cv-00068-DGC (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); 2. directing that notice be issued to all current and former lieutenants employed by Maricopa County in the Patrol Division from January 11, 2020, to the present (the "Patrol Lieutenants"); 3. authorizing Houck to mail, email, and text notice to all Patrol Lieutenants; 4. approving the Proposed Notice and Consent to Opt-In to Lawsuit; And 5. requiring that within 14 days of the Court's ruling on this Motion, the Defendant Maricopa County, produce the requested contact information of all Patrol Lieutenants. The lawsuit said, "Houck's evidence satisfies the FLSA conditional certification standard and the issuance of notice is therefore appropriate. Houck requests that the Court approve the Proposed Notice, Consent Form, and distribution procedure. Further, Houck requests that the County be ordered to produce the names, addresses, email addresses, and cell phone numbers of all current and former Patrol Lieutenants from January 11, 2020, through the date the notice is distributed in an electronic and importable format within 14 days. Houck seeks expedited discovery of names, addresses, email addresses, and cell phone numbers of all Patrol Lieutenants so they may receive the Proposed Notice and Consent to Opt-In to Lawsuit form. This information is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the action. Houck brings this action against the County for its unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA. Houck alleges that the County improperly classified him and the other similarly situated Patrol Lieutenants as exempt from overtime, when in reality their primary duties are nonexempt in nature. The Plaintiff Houck has worked for the Maricopa County Sherriff's Office (MCSO) from February 2007 to the present. Maricopa County is in the south-central part of the U.S. state of Arizona. A copy of the The Plaintiff's motion dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41htixF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC 6017 N. 15th Street Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: (602) 682-6450 E-mail: TDF@yprklaw.com PNS@yprklaw.com MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Pirani Sues Over 8.7% Drop of Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------- FIYYAZ PIRANI, TRUSTEE OF IMPERIUM IRREVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST, INC., MPT OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P., EDWARD K. ALDAG, JR., R. STEVEN HAMNER, and J. KEVIN HANNA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00486-CLM (N.D. Ala., April 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading statements to investors in order to trade Medical Properties securities at artificially inflated prices between July 15, 2019 and February 22, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose the following pertaining to the company's business, operations, and prospects: (i) the company masked the distressed state of its tenants through sale-leaseback arrangements which were essentially round-robin transactions in that they allowed debt-saddled tenants to meet their obligations in the short-term; (ii) the company fraudulently transferred hundreds of millions of dollars in what amounted to a bailout of financially distressed tenants; (iii) the company concealed its fraudulent transfers with fake construction projects with purportedly high capital expenses, despite the fact that the company entered into "triple-net leases," which meant that its tenants were obligated to pay a significant portion of expenses, such as real estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance; and (iv) as a result, the company's public statements, including those with respect to the Pennsylvania Properties, were materially false and misleading at the time they were made. When the truth emerged, the price of Medical Properties shares fell 8.7 percent, or $1.06, from a closing price on February 22, 2023 of $12.20 per share to a close on February 23 of $11.14 per share. By March 1, 2023, the company's stock had fallen 17.5 percent, closing at $10.07 per share, a loss of market capitalization of in excess of $1.25 billion, says the suit. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust company based in Birmingham, Alabama. MPT Operating Partnership, L.P. is a real estate company based in Birmingham, Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com - and - Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. James Maro, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: ssavett@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net aabramowitz@bm.net jmaro@bm.net MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERRITT HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a MERRITT HEALTHCARE ADVISORS, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00489-JAM (D. Conn., April 18, 2023) is a class action arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant Merritt (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "the Private Information") of the Plaintiff and other patients of Defendant Merritt, the putative class members. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or both. Defendant Merritt failed to properly monitor the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. Had Merritt properly monitored its property, it would have discovered the intrusion sooner rather than allowing cybercriminals almost a month of unimpeded access to the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. MERRITT HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a MERRITT HEALTHCARE ADVISORS represents healthcare facilities and practices when selling an interest, creating a new partnership or growing via acquisition. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erin Green Comite, Esq. Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com arusi@scott-scott.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Avenue 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com NABORS COMPLETION: Court Confirms Arbitration Award in Lopez Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTONIO LOPEZ, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-06213-DDP-JPRx (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants Lopez's Petition to Confirm Final Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. Lopez performed oil well plug and abandonment work for Nabors in the Port of Long Beach, as part of a larger project to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge. On April 2, 2015, former Nabors employees, who performed similar work on the project, filed a putative class action in state court against Nabors for violations under the California Labor Code, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, including Lopez. Nabors removed the action to this Court, and thereafter filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement. The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration, Nabors appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration. On March 30, 2018, Lopez submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS, asserting the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure to pay prevailing wages (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194, 1771, 1772, 1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code Section 203); (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a)); and (4) unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200). Thereafter, Deborah Crandall Saxe, Esq., was appointed as the Arbitrator. Lopez filed a motion for summary adjudication pursuant to JAMS Employment Rule 18. On Oct. 13, 2021, the Arbitrator granted Lopez's motion, ruling on the issues pertaining to Nabors' liability. On Feb. 28, 2022, the matter proceeded to a virtual arbitration hearing on damages. On June 22, 2022, the Arbitrator issued an Interim Arbitration Award. On July 18, 2022, Lopez filed a motion to set the amount of attorney's fees and costs with the Arbitrator. On Aug. 23, 2022, the Arbitrator accepted Lopez's lodestar fees, awarded a 1.5 multiplier, and incorporated the Interim Award into a Final Arbitration Award. Through the Final Arbitration Award, the Arbitrator awarded Lopez $203,070.93 in unpaid wages, plus continuing interest after Jan. 10, 2022, at 10% per annum until paid, $2,700 in penalties under Labor Code section 226, $175,406.88 in attorney fees, and $2,306.64 in costs, plus continuing interest after Aug. 23, 2022. Lopez now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks $10,302 in post-award attorneys' fees and $402 in costs for filing of the initial complaint in this confirmation action. Nabors contends that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law through several alleged errors with respect to its liability and damages. Specifically, it argues that the Arbitrator erred in (1) rejecting, and not giving any deference to, the Labor Commissioner's decision that Nabors' subject work in the Port of Long Beach was not within the jurisdiction of California Public Work Law and therefore exempt from California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq.; and (2) deeming the subject work as a public work and awarding Lopez's prevailing wages even though there are no prevailing wage rates--or applicable classifications--established by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) for Lopez's oil field work. Nabors, however, fails to identify any instances in the record where the Arbitrator recognized the applicable law and then ignored it, Judge Pregerson finds. The alleged errors are based on misinterpretation or misapplication of the la -- such legal errors are insufficient to vacate an Arbitration Award. Finding no manifest disregard of the law exhibited in the Arbitration Award, Judge Pregerson declines to vacate the Arbitration Award. He therefore grants Lopez's Petition to confirm the Arbitration Award. As the prevailing party in this action, Lopez is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including fees incurred in connection with the confirmation action. Thus, the only issue before the Court is whether the requested fees and costs are reasonable. Lopez seeks $9,832 in attorneys' fees. Judge Pregerson finds, and Nabors does not dispute, that the rates set forth by Lopez's counsel are within the range of reasonable rates for attorneys in the local community, taking into consideration the "experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney. Specifically, he finds that the following rates are reasonable: Richard E. Donahoo, Attorney - $700/hour; Sarah L. Kokonas, Attorney - $495/hour; and Kelsey Ung, Senior Paralegal - $295/hour. With respect to the time spent for work performed on this matter, Lopez's counsel has submitted detailed billing records of work performed and an accompanying declaration. Lopez's motion and Richard Donahoo's declaration estimate that the counsel spent a total of 17.2 hours on tasks related to the post-award confirmation action. Of these hours, Lopez claims that 6.6 hours are attributable to Richard Donahoo, 6.7 hours are attributable to Sarah Kokonas, 0.9 hours attributable to Kelsey Ung, and 3.0 hours are attributable to time Richard Donahoo anticipated he would spend preparing a reply and anticipated judgment. Judge Pregerson has adjusted these hours for reasonableness. Specifically, he has subtracted 2.6 hours from the amount of time billed by Sara L. Kokonas in connection with the preparation of the petition and motion to confirm the arbitration award. Given that he decided to take this matter under submission without a hearing, Judge Pregerson has subtracted 0.8 hours from the amount of time Richard Donahoo anticipated billing for preparing for and attending the hearing. Applying the approved rates to the adjusted hours, the lodestar method yields the following result: Richard E. Donahoo - $6,160; Kelsey Ung - $265.50; Sarah Kokonas - $2,029.50. With these adjustments, it reflects the reasonable number of hours expended by the counsel in relation to the confirmation action and request for post-award fees. Thus, Lopez is entitled to $8,455 in fees and $402 for the cost of filing the complaint. For the reasons he stated, Judge Pregerson grants Lopez's Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award. The Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Deborah Crandall Saxe, Esq. on Aug. 3, 2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058989 is confirmed. The Court will enter judgment in favor of Lopez and against Nabors in the amount of $203,070.93 in unpaid wages, plus continuing interest after Jan. 10, 2022, at 10% per annum until paid, $2,700 in penalties under Labor Code section 226, $175,406.88 in attorney fees, and $2,306.64 in costs, plus continuing interest after Aug. 23, 2022. Judge Pregerson further grants Lopez's request for post-award attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,455 and for costs in the amount of $402. A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3z9jsyej from Leagle.com. NEW YORK, NY: Case Management Order Entered in Local 5207 Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 2507, UNIFORMED EMTS, PARAMEDICS & FIRE INSPECTORS, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:22-cv-10336-AT-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered a case management order as follows: 1. All pre-trial applications, including those relating to scheduling and discovery, shall be made to the undersigned (except motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification). 2. The parties should write to the Court at any time that they wish to participate in Courtsponsored mediation. 3. All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all discovery. 4. Discovery motions -- that is, any application pursuant to Rules 26 through 37 or 45 -- not only must comply with section 2.A. of the Court's Individual Practices but also must be made promptly after the cause for such a motion arises. In addition, absent extraordinary circumstances no such application will be considered if made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery. 5. Any application for an extension of the time limitations with respect to any deadlines in this matter must be made as soon as the cause for the extension becomes known to the party making the application and must be made in accordance with 1.E of the Court's Individual Practices. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MQwITv at no extra charge.[CC] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Train Derailment Suit Appoints Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Korris of Madison – St. Clair Record reports that U. S. District Judge Benita Pearson chose Jayne Conroy from the New York office of John Simmons's firm in Alton as one of four leaders for a potential class action over Norfolk Southern's toxic derailment at East Palestine, Ohio. An order Pearson signed on April 5 also appointed Seth Katz of Denver and Beth Graham of Wilmington, Delaware, as interim class counsel. Interim appointments are typically temporary, but Pearson couldn't appoint them permanently because she hasn't decided whether to certify a class. Her order showed she expects them to lead throughout. Among other powers, she granted them authority to negotiate a settlement. She wrote that defendants could rely on any agreements or representation the leaders make. She picked a fourth leader, Michael Morgan of Orlando, Florida, as counsel for plaintiffs who sued outside the class action but don't oppose the class structure. She also appointed an executive committee, a steering committee, and a pool of lawyers for assignment to committees on specific issues. The steering committee includes Andrew Schlichter of St. Louis. Ohio lawyers had urged Pearson to appoint Ohio lawyers as interim counsel. Although she didn't do it, she picked three of them for lesser roles. Pearson appointed Jeffrey Goldenberg of Cincinnati to the executive committee and Ronald Parry of Cincinnati to the steering committee. She appointed Youngstown native Nils Johnson, now in practice eight miles away at Canfield, as community liaison. "Committees of counsel can sometimes lead to substantially increased costs," Pearson wrote. She advised leaders to control expenses and avoid duplication of efforts. As part of her order she consolidated all 22 derailment cases in her court. She directed the leaders to file a master class action complaint by May 4. She wrote that she would look with favor on allowing students from regional law schools to participate in court approved facets of the litigation. Purposes of lead counsel: -- Determine and present positions of all plaintiffs as to all matters -- Designate attorneys for oral argument -- Conduct or coordinate interrogatories, requests for documents, and depositions -- Appoint trial counsel -- Employ experts -- Call meetings of the executive committee -- Ensure that all plaintiffs and their counsel are kept informed of progress -- Forward all orders, discovery, and filings to counsel for all plaintiffs -- Assess litigation costs and collect assessments regularly -- Collect time and expense reports from counsel for all plaintiffs -- Coordinate and communicate with defense counsel on scheduling of depositions [GN] PILOT CATASTROPHE: Pleasants Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Sonya Gladney Pleasants, individually and for others similarly situated v. PILOT CATASTROPHE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00132-KD-MU (S.D. Ala., April 17, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff and the Day Rate Adjusters regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But the Defendant never paid the Plaintiff and the Day Rate Adjusters overtime. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and the Day Rate Adjusters as exempt from overtime and paid them a flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate") without overtime compensation. the Defendant never paid The Plaintiff or the Day Rate Adjusters on a "salary basis," says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Pilot as an Insurance Claim Adjuster since September 2018. Pilot is an insurance adjusting firm that "provides a complete suite of services to handle claims arising from catastrophic events."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter S. Mackey, Esq. BURNS, CUNNINGHAM & MACKEY, PC P.O. Box 1583 Mobile, AL 36633 Phone: 251-432-0612 Facsimile: 251-432-0625 Email: psmackey@bcmlawyers.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PRO-HEALTH LLC: Rodriguez Sues Over Mass Layoffs Without Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- ATILANO RODRIGUEZ, AZUCENA MARTINEZ PAHUA, and ONOFRE VALENCIA GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRO-HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00929 (D. Colo., April 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by terminating the Plaintiffs and similarly situated immigrant workers without cause, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of that mass layoff ordered by the Defendant around March 22, 2021, and within 30 days of that date. Plaintiffs Rodriguez, Pahua, and Gonzalez worked as maintenance worker, sorter, and quality control inspector, respectively, at the Defendant's facility located at 36635 A St. Wray, Colorado. Pro-Health, LLC is a company that processes produce, headquartered in McKinney, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Seligman, Esq. Juno Turner, Esq. Natasha Viteri, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE P.O. Box 371680, PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80237 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org juno@towardsjustice.org natasha@towardsjustice.org - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. Gail C. Lin, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 E-mail: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com jar@raisnerroupinian.com gcl@raisnerroupinian.com PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to July 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-04147-JHS (E.D. Pa.), Hon. Judge Joel H. Slomsky entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class July 17, 2023 Certification shall be filed by: 2. The Plaintiff's Class Certification July 17, 2023. Expert Disclosures shall be served upon opposing counsel by: 3. The Plaintiff's Class Certification August 14, 2023 Expert Depositions shall be completed by: 4. The Defendant's Opposition to September 13, 2023 Class Certification shall be filed by: 5. The Defendant's Challenges to September 13, 2023 The Plaintiff's Class Certification Experts shall be filed by: 6. The Defendant's Class Certification September 13, 2023. Expert Disclosures shall be served upon opposing counsel by: 7. The Defendant's Class Certification October 16, 2023 Expert Depositions shall be completed by: 8. The Plaintiff's Reply to the October 30, 2023 Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed by: 9. The Plaintiff's Challenges to the October 30, 2023 Defendant's Class Certification Experts shall be filed by: Progressive Specialty operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A5EelV at no extra charge.[CC] QUEST DRILLING: Tinoco Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Laborers ----------------------------------------------------------- ARMANDO TINOCO, VICTOR MANUEL SOTO, and GUSTAVO ALBERTO MONTALVO BERNAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUEST DRILLING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00066-Z (N.D. Tex., April 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers their wages based upon overtime and minimum wage requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs performed labor at Quest, and they were employed from 2017 until March 22, 2022. Quest Drilling Company, LLC is an operator of oil drilling based in Moore County, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Dore, Esq. JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC 6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (773) 415-4898 E-mail: jdore@justicialaboral.com REALPAGE INC: Alvarez Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Matthew Alvarez and Scott Halliwell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC., a Delaware corporation; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation; MID AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., a Tennessee corporation; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, a Maryland real estate investment trust; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC., a Maryland corporation; ESSEX MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., a Maryland corporation; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, a Texas real estate investment trust; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., a Washington corporation, Defendants; Gabriel Navarro, Interested Party, Case No. 2:22-cv-01617 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00331 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander G. Tievsky, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 N. Lasalle St., 14th Fl. Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 589-6379 Email: atievsky@edelson.com - and - Todd M. Logan, Esq. Yaman Salahi, Esq. P. Solange Hilfinger-Pardo EDELSON PC (SF) 150 California St., Ste. 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 212-9300 Fax: (415) 373-9435 Email: tlogan@edelson.com ysalahi@edelson.com shilfingerpardo@edelson.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS, BERMAN, SOBOL, SHAPIRO, LLP (SEATTLE OFFICE) 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ben A. Sherwood, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Phone: (212) 351-2671 Email: bsherwood@gibsondunn.com - and - Daniel G. Swanson, Esq. Jay P. Srinivasan, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (LA/CA) 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: (213) 229-7430 Fax: (213) 229-6430 Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com - and - Michael J. Perry, Esq. Stephen Weissman, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (DC) 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036-5303 Phone: (202) 887-3558 Email: mjperry@gibsondunn.com sweissman@gibsondunn.com - and - Stephen C. Whittaker, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (IRVINE) 3161 Michelson Dr., Ste. 1200 Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: (949) 451-4337 Email: cwhittaker@gibsondunn.com - and - Darin M. Sands, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP (PORTLAND) 1425 Sw 20th Ave., Ste. 201 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 734-2480 Email: dsands@bradleybernsteinllp.com - and - Heidi B. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP 113 Cherry St. Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 337-6551 Email: hbradley@bradleybernsteinllp.com - and - Gregory J. Casas, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (AUSTIN OFFICE) 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 320-7238 Email: casasg@gtlaw.com - and - Mary Rebecca Knack, Esq. Jessica B. Jensen, Esq. OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC 901 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 3500 Seattle, WA 98164-2008 Phone: (206) 447-7000 Fax: (206) 447-0215 Email: rknack@omwlaw.com jjensen@omwlaw.com - and - Alyse F. Stach, Esq. Carl W. Hittinger, Esq. Tyson Y. Herrold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (PHILADELPHIA) 1735 Market St, Ste 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 564-5768 Email: astach@bakerlaw.com chittinger@bakerlaw.com therrold@bakerlaw.com - and - Curt Roy Hineline, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (SEA) 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 332-1380 Email: chineline@bakerlaw.com - and - Leo D. Caseria, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DC) 2099 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 100 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 747-1925 Email: lcaseria@sheppardmullin.com - and - Tiffany L. Lee, Esq. PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: (206) 359-3304 Email: Tiffanylee@perkinscoie.com - and - Belinda S. Lee, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS (SF) 505 Montgomery St., Ste. 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Email: belinda.lee@lw.com - and - Paul R. Taylor, Esq. BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 622-2000 Fax: (206) 622-2522 Email: ptaylor@byrneskeller.com - and - Laurie Novion, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP (KANSAS CITY OFFICE) 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Email: lnovion@shb.com - and - Lynn H. Murray, Esq. Maveric Ray Searle, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (IL) 111 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 704-7700 Fax: (312) 558-1195 Email: lhmurray@shb.com msearle@shb.com - and - Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (SF) 555 Mission St., Ste, 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 544-1900 Email: rsandrock@shb.com - and - Hunter K. Ahern, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (WA) 701 5th Ave Ste 6800 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 344-7600 Email: hahern@shb.com - and - Benjamin I. VandenBerghe, Esq. Kaya Lurie, Esq. MONTGOMERY PURDUE PLLC 701 5th Ave. 5500 Columbia Center Seattle, WA 98104-7096 Phone: (206) 682-7090 Fax: (206) 625-9534 Email: klurie@montgomerypurdue.com - and - Jacque Elizabeth St Romain, Esq. Jason J. Hoeft, Esq. Jose Dino Vasquez, Esq. Joshua R.M. Rosenberg, Esq. Nathan Paine, Esq. KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 224-8089 Email: jstromain@karrtuttle.com jhoeft@karrtuttle.com dvasquez@karrtuttle.com jrosenberg@karrtuttle.com npaine@karrtuttle.com The Interested Party is represented by: Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com REALPAGE INC: Navarro Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gabriel Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Zachary Corradino, Samantha Reyes, Patrick Parker, Jeremy Enders, Mary Bertlshofer, Priscilla Parker, Patrick Parker, Barry Amar-Hoover, Jeremy Enders, Mary Bertlshofer, Laura Boelens, Intervenor Plaintiffs v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; PINNACLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC.; CARDINAL GROUP HOLDINGS LLC; CA VENTURES GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC; D.P. PREISS COMPANY, INC.; THE MICHAELS ORGANIZATION, LLC and INTERSTATE REALTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01552 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00329 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Hannah K. Song, Esq. Rio S. Pierce, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (CA) 715 Hearst Ave., Ste. 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Fax: (510) 725-3001 Email: hannahso@hbsslaw.com riop@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ben A. Sherwood, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Phone: (212) 351-2671 Email: bsherwood@gibsondunn.com - and - Daniel G. Swanson, Esq. Jay P. Srinivasan, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (LA/CA) 333 S. Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: (213) 229-7430 Fax: (213) 229-6430 Email: dswanson@gibsondunn.com jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com - and - Darin M. Sands, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP (PORTLAND) 1425 Sw 20th Ave., Ste. 201 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 734-2480 Email: dsands@bradleybernsteinllp.com - and - Michael J. Perry, Esq. Stephen Weissman, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (DC) 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036-5303 Phone: (202) 887-3558 Email: mjperry@gibsondunn.com sweissman@gibsondunn.com - and - Stephen C. Whittaker, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (IRVINE) 3161 Michelson Dr., Ste. 1200 Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: (949) 451-4337 Email: cwhittaker@gibsondunn.com - and - Heidi B. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP 113 Cherry St. Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 337-6551 Email: hbradley@bradleybernsteinllp.com - and - Ian Simmons, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS, LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-4001 Phone: (202) 383-5300 Email: isimmons@omm.com - and - Stephen McIntyre, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP (LA OFFICE) 400 S Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Phone: (213) 430-6000 Email: smcintyre@omm.com - and - Emily J. Harris, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Ave., 10th Fl. Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 625-8600 Email: eharris@corrcronin.com - and - Jason M Powers, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS (HOUSTON) 1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Phone: (713) 758-2522 Email: jpowers@velaw.com - and - Marisa Secco Giles, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS (AUSTIN) 200 W 6th St., Ste. 2500 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 542-8781 Fax: (512) 236-3243 Email: mgiles@velaw.com - and - Christopher W. Nicoll, Esq. Melinda R. Drogseth, Esq. NICOLL BLACK & FEIG PLLC 1325 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1650 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-7555 Fax: (206) 838-7515 Email: cnicoll@nicollblack.com mdrogseth@nicollblack.com - and - Cynthia Sue-Jin Park, Esq. Allison K. Krashan, Esq. Devon John McCurdy, Esq. SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT (SEA) 1420 5th Ave, Ste 3400 Seattle, WA 98101-2339 Phone: (206) 677-1568 Email: cpark@schwabe.com akrashan@schwabe.com mccurdyd@lanepowell.co - and - Sarah L. Hartley, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP (DC) 1155 F ST NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (303) 866-0363 Email: sarah.hartley@bclplaw.com - and - Timothy R. Beyer, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP (DENVER) 1700 Lincoln St., Ste. 4100 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-0481 Email: tim.beyer@bclplaw.com - and - Michael Murray, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP (DC) 2050 M Street NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 551-1730 Email: michaelmurray@paulhastings.com - and - Noah Byron Pinegar, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP (NY) 200 Park Ave. New York, NY 10166 Phone: (212) 318-6057 Fax: (212) 303-7057 Email: noahpinegar@paulhastings.com - and - Christopher T. Wion, Esq. J. Chad Mitchell SUMMIT LAW GROUP 315 5th Ave. S., Ste 1000 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 676-7000 Email: chrisw@summitlaw.com chadm@summitlaw.com - and - Amy B. Manning, Esq. Angelo M. Russo, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP (IL) 77 West Wacker Drive, Ste. 4100 Chicago, IL 60601-1818 Phone: (312) 857-1700 Fax: (312) 558-4386 Email: amanning@mcguirewoods.com arusso@mcguirewoods.com - and - Yonaton Rosenzweig, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (LOS ANGELES) 865 S Figueroa St., Ste. 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Email: yonirosenzweig@dwt.com - and - Fred B. Burnside, Esq. MaryAnn T. Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA) 920 Fifth Ave, Ste 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: (206) 622-3150 Fax: (206) 757-7700 Email: fredburnside@dwt.com maryannalmeida@dwt.com The Intervenor Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com REALPAGE INC: Pham Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Pham, Diana Lazarte, Marco Cuevas, Valdamitra Anderson, Michael Poole, and Daniel Flowers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC.; and UDR, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01744 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00337 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Zapala, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP (BURLINGAME) 840 Malcom Rd., Ste. 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC 120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com - and - Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Gayatri Raghunandan, Esq. James G. Dallal, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP (BURLINGAME) 840 Malcom Rd., Ste. 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 Email: ecastillo@cpmlegal.com graghunandan@cpmlegal.com jdallal@cpmlegal.com - and - Karin Bornstein Swope, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP (SEATTLE) 999 N. Northlake Way, Ste. 215 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: (206) 778-2123 Email: kswope@cpmlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Darin M. Sands, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP (PORTLAND) 1425 Sw 20th Ave., Ste. 201 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 734-2480 Email: dsands@bradleybernsteinllp.com - and - Stephen Weissman, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (DC) 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036-5303 Phone: (202) 887-3558 Email: sweissman@gibsondunn.com - and - Heidi B. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP 113 Cherry St. Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 337-6551 Email: hbradley@bradleybernsteinllp.com - and – Rebecca S. Ashbaugh, Esq. ASHBAUGH BEAL LLP 701 Fifth Ave 4400 Columbia Tower Seattle, WA 98104-7012 Phone: (206) 386-5900 Email: bashbaugh@ashbaughbeal.com - and - Ian Simmons, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS, LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-4001 Phone: (202) 383-5300 Email: isimmons@omm.com - and - Stephen McIntyre, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP (LA OFFICE) 400 S Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Phone: (213) 430-6000 Email: smcintyre@omm.com - and - Emily J. Harris, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Ave., 10th Fl. Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 625-8600 Email: eharris@corrcronin.com - and – Alyse F. Stach, Esq. Carl W. Hittinger, Esq. Tyson Y. Herrold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (PHILADELPHIA) 1735 Market St, Ste 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 564-5768 Email: astach@bakerlaw.com chittinger@bakerlaw.com therrold@bakerlaw.com - and - Curt Roy Hineline, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (SEA) 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 332-1380 Email: chineline@bakerlaw.com - and - Gregory J. Casas, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (AUSTIN OFFICE) 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 320-7238 Email: casasg@gtlaw.com - and - Mary Rebecca Knack, Esq. Jessica B. Jensen, Esq. OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC 901 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 3500 Seattle, WA 98164-2008 Phone: (206) 447-7000 Fax: (206) 447-0215 Email: rknack@omwlaw.com jjensen@omwlaw.com - and - Jacque Elizabeth St Romain, Esq. Jason J. Hoeft, Esq. Jose Dino Vasquez, Esq. Joshua R.M. Rosenberg, Esq. Nathan Paine, Esq. KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 224-8089 Email: jstromain@karrtuttle.com jhoeft@karrtuttle.com dvasquez@karrtuttle.com jrosenberg@karrtuttle.com npaine@karrtuttle.com - and - Benjamin I. VandenBerghe, Esq. Kaya Lurie, Esq. MONTGOMERY PURDUE PLLC 701 5th Ave. 5500 Columbia Center Seattle, WA 98104-7096 Phone: (206) 682-7090 Fax: (206) 625-9534 Email: klurie@montgomerypurdue.com - and - David D. Cross, Esq. Jeffrey A. Jaeckel, Esq. Robert W. Manoso, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2100 L St NW, Ste 900 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 887-1500 Fax: (202) 887-0763 Email: dcross@mofo.com jjaeckel@mofo.com rmanoso@mofo.com - and - Selby P. Brown, Esq. Diana S. Breaux, Esq. SUMMIT LAW GROUP 315 5th Ave S, Ste 1000 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 676-7000 Email: selbyb@summitlaw.com dianab@summitlaw.com - and - Sonja Swanbeck, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP (DC) 2100 L St Nw Ste 900 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (202) 887-1500 Fax: (202) 887-0763 Email: sswanbeck@mofo.com The Interested Party is represented by: Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com REALPAGE INC: Silverman Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Shaina Silverman and Tyler Kimbrough, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; TF CORNERSTONE, INC.; and ROSE ASSOCIATES INC., Defendants; Gabriel Navarro, Interested Party; Case No. 2:22-cv-01740 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00335 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State St., Ste. 4010 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 739-0622 Email: blake.yagman@davidllc.com - and - Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Israel David, Esq. FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 859-8000 Fax: (212) 859-4000 Email: Israel.David@friedfrank.com The Defendants are represented by: Darin M. Sands, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP (PORTLAND) 1425 Sw 20th Ave., Ste. 201 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 734-2480 Email: dsands@bradleybernsteinllp.com - and - Stephen Weissman, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (DC) 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036-5303 Phone: (202) 887-3558 Email: sweissman@gibsondunn.com - and - Heidi B. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP 113 Cherry St. Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 337-6551 Email: hbradley@bradleybernsteinllp.com - and - Jeremy E. Roller, Esq. YARMUTH WILSDON CALFO PLLC 818 Stewart Street, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 516-3800 Fax: (205) 516-3888 Email: jroller@yarmuth.com - and - Alyse F. Stach, Esq. Carl W. Hittinger, Esq. Tyson Y. Herrold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (PHILADELPHIA) 1735 Market St, Ste 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 564-5768 Email: astach@bakerlaw.com chittinger@bakerlaw.com therrold@bakerlaw.com - and - Curt Roy Hineline, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (SEA) 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 332-1380 Email: chineline@bakerlaw.com - and - Belinda S. Lee, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS (SF) 505 Montgomery St., Ste. 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Email: belinda.lee@lw.com - and - Paul R. Taylor, Esq. BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 622-2000 Fax: (206) 622-2522 Email: ptaylor@byrneskeller.com - and - Brittney C. Adams, Esq. Kelly M. Drew, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP (SPOKANE) 601 W 1st Ave, Ste 1400 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (206) 695-5100 Email: badams@grsm.com kdrew@grsm.com The Interested Party is represented by: Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com REALPAGE INC: Zhovmiruk Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Yelizaveta Zhovmiruk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; MID AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC, CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC, and WINDSOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01779 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00345 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Darin M. Sands, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP (PORTLAND) 1425 Sw 20th Ave., Ste. 201 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 734-2480 Email: dsands@bradleybernsteinllp.com - and - Stephen Weissman, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (DC) 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036-5303 Phone: (202) 887-3558 Email: sweissman@gibsondunn.com - and - Heidi B. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP 113 Cherry St. Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 337-6551 Email: hbradley@bradleybernsteinllp.com - and - Rebecca S. Ashbaugh, Esq. ASHBAUGH BEAL LLP 701 Fifth Ave 4400 Columbia Tower Seattle, WA 98104-7012 Phone: (206) 386-5900 Email: bashbaugh@ashbaughbeal.com - and - Leo D. Caseria, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DC) 2099 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 100 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 747-1925 Email: lcaseria@sheppardmullin.com - and – Tiffany L. Lee, Esq. PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: (206) 359-3304 Email: Tiffanylee@perkinscoie.com - and - Benjamin I. VandenBerghe, Esq. Kaya Lurie, Esq. MONTGOMERY PURDUE PLLC 701 5th Ave. 5500 Columbia Center Seattle, WA 98104-7096 Phone: (206) 682-7090 Fax: (206) 625-9534 Email: klurie@montgomerypurdue.com The Interested Party is represented by: Breanna Le Van Engelen, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA) 1301 2nd Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com SEATTLE, WA: Faces Suit Over Sea-Tac Airport's Toxic Pollution -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Schaefer of B Town Blog reports that residents of the city of SeaTac and surrounding areas this week filed a class action lawsuit against the Port of Seattle, Alaska Air Group Inc. and Delta Air Lines Inc., alleging that airport operations contaminate neighborhoods near Sea-Tac Airport with a combination of pollutants including carbon monoxide, lead and particulate matter, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. The lawsuit, which was filed in King County Superior Court on Wednesday, April 19, 2023, claims the Port of Seattle, which owns Sea-Tac Airport, along with the named airline companies, have known about the pollutants and their associated health risks for years and have done nothing to mitigate them, despite the pollutants' possible link to hundreds of excess deaths in the area every year, according to researchers. This class-action lawsuit represents those living within a five-mile radius of Sea-Tac Airport, where more than 300,000 people live, at least 60,000 of whom are children, and have likely been exposed to unhealthy levels of toxic substances including lead and carbon monoxide from nearby airport operations. Attorneys call this the Contamination Zone, which includes but is not limited to Burien, Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila, "where levels of cancer, heart disease and chronic lower respiratory disease are significantly higher." "Our local communities deserve to breathe clean air and to know that their homes and schools are free from dangerous pollutants. At this juncture, given the refusal to deal with the issue by the Port and the airlines, we believe this lawsuit is the only way to secure that future," said Steve Berman, partner at Seattle-based Hagens Berman and the attorney leading the suit. "We are bringing claims of public nuisance, trespass and negligence against the Port of Seattle, Alaska and Delta, which is the same legal strategy our firm deployed in an historic win against Big Tobacco in the 90s." More than 300,000 people, including over 60,000 children, live within what attorneys are calling the "Contamination Zone" around Sea-Tac Airport. "Within the Contamination Zone, which includes but is not limited to Burien, Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila, rates of cancer, heart disease and chronic lower respiratory disease are significantly higher than in surrounding areas, researchers have concluded," attorneys said. The law firm says that those living within a five-mile radius of Sea-Tac Airport may be impacted, including: Burien Des Moines Normandy Park Renton SeaTac Tukwila Airport Pollutants Leave Unique "Chemical Fingerprints" on Schools and Homes According to the complaint, planes taking off and landing at Sea-Tac Airport spew pollutants like formaldehyde and acrolein into the atmosphere. Particulate matter containing toxic chemicals can flake off airplanes during flight, raining heavy metals like lead, barium and cadmium onto the area below, where it can settle on homes, schools and the surrounding environment. The lawsuit references a public health report and several studies by the University of Washington and Public Health - Seattle/King County - including one pertaining specifically to schools, which concluded that communities within the Contamination Zone are contaminated with a unique blend of particulate matter, dangerous gases and hazardous air pollutants. Studies of other international airports have yielded evidence of high concentrations of lead and other heavy metals in the surrounding soil, and attorneys say it is likely that the soil around Sea-Tac Airport is similarly tainted. Other researchers have concluded that airport emissions may have unique "chemical fingerprints," leading attorneys to believe that airport operations are the only plausible source of the pollutants observed in the area. "The research is very clear," Berman said. "The unique chemical fingerprints left behind from airport pollutants are a smoking gun in this scenario, leading researchers to exactly which parties are responsible for the increased levels of pollution in the Contamination Zone south of Seattle. We are demanding long-overdue accountability from the Port and the airline companies." Vulnerable Populations Pay Steepest Price According to the lawsuit, residents of the Contamination Zone suffer from shorter life expectancies and higher risk of cancer and other serious illnesses. Residents of the Contamination Zone are more likely to be immigrants than residents of surrounding areas, and the majority are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, in a county where only a third of the overall population belongs to these groups. More than 30% of Zone residents have total household incomes under 200% of the federal poverty level. The complaint alleges that it is unlikely the defendants would have allowed pollution to continue unchecked if the neighborhoods surrounding the airport were more affluent. "This is an issue of environmental justice, and we're going to bat for our friends and neighbors on this one," Berman said. "Our firm has been based in Seattle since its founding in 1993, and we have deep roots in our local community." One of the named plaintiffs in the case, Michelle Geer, lived within the Contamination Zone for many years, in a home that she and her husband could feel shake every time a plane passed overhead. Geer was living in this home when she became pregnant with her first child, the lawsuit states. On Thanksgiving morning in 1994, Geer's four-year-old daughter, who had been born with a hearing impairment, began walking at a strange angle. Shortly thereafter, she was diagnosed with brain cancer and passed away a few weeks after her fifth birthday. Geer believes that exposure to airport pollution during her pregnancy may have contributed to her daughter's hearing impairment and the cancer which ultimately took her life, according to the complaint. In addition to public nuisance, the lawsuit brings claims of negligence, continuing intentional trespass and violation of inverse condemnation laws against the Port. The suit seeks to hold defendants accountable for funding a cleanup of the area, compensating residents for the loss of use and enjoyment of their property and establishing a medical monitoring fund. Comments on Lawsuit We reached out for comment from the defendants, and so far the only response we've received is from the Port of Seattle: "We are reviewing the litigation and have no comment on the specific claims on April 19, 2023." "However, it is important to note that the airport and its tenants follow strict federal, state, and local requirements as they relate to how operations impact environmental issues such as air quality and noise." "In addition, the airport and its tenants routinely go above and beyond regulatory requirements to voluntarily further eliminate emissions, reduce noise, and protect habitat." We will update this story if and when we receive comments from Alaska and Delta. Steve Edmiston, a Des Moines resident who has served on a number of city and statewide airport study committees (most recently an appointee by Gov. Inslee to represent citizen interests on the Commercial Aviation Advisory Commission), stated: "The Port of Seattle has long-known of the harms caused by noise and pollution from airplane overflights, and continues to plan to expand for even more flights. Even on April 19, 2023, the Port refuses to publicly comment on, or release records relating to, the harms to humans outlined in the 2020 Public Health Seattle King County airport study - the same study featured in the lawsuit. This class action is a big deal. The Hagens Berman firm is world-class when it comes to class actions. And it does exactly what class actions are intended to do - levels the playing field." Sheila Brush, founder of Quiet Skies Puget Sound, said: "Our airport communities have been suffering disproportionately for decades, and no amount of science or community outcry has slowed any of the Port of Seattle's airport growth plans. Instead, the Port seems satisfied to try to convince communities that someone else, like the FAA, is responsible. The Port actively seeks to avoid even speaking about its own accountability. It's sad that a class action lawsuit is needed. But we're grateful for the commitment of the Plaintiffs and the Hagens Berman firm to stand up for public health." [GN] SKYLER ZHANG: Class Cert. Bids Due Dec. 11 in Fields ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE FIELDS on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SKYLER ZHANG, LLC, NORRISH ZHANG, LLC, NEW ERA FOOD, INC., and MICHAEL ZHANG, Case No. 1:22-cv-03002-GPG-MEH (D. Colo.), Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered a scheduling order: a. Deadline for Joinder of Parties June 12, 2023 and Amendment of Pleadings: b. Class Certification Discovery Nov. 10, 2023 cut-off: c. Class Certification Motion(s) Dec. 11, 2023 Deadline: -- Statement Of Claims And Defenses The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are or were employed by the Defendants in Defendants' Asian restaurants. The Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated overtime wages, improperly paid Plaintiff and others sub-minimum wages, failed to provide Plaintiff and others required rest periods, stole portions of Plaintiff's and others' tips, were unjustly enriched by their retention of Plaintiff's and others' tips, and retaliated against Plaintiff when she sought to enforce her wage rights. The Defendants deny that the Defendants engaged in any unlawful pay practices and deny that Plaintiff or any proposed class or collective action member is entitled to relief. The Defendants state that many of the Plaintiff’s allegations and claims, as set forth above and in the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are factually inaccurate, incomplete, untrue, and/or fabricated. -- Computation Of Damages The Plaintiff cannot yet calculate her or those similarly situated's damages because the hours-worked, wages-paid and tips-stolen records required to calculate her and similarly situated employees' damages are in Defendants' control and have not yet been produced to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, actual damages, liquidated damages, penalties, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorney fees and costs resulting from Defendants' willful violations of state and federal wage statutory law, Colorado's theft statute and Colorado common law. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff is entitled to any legal, equitable, or other type of relief in any amount or manner whatsoever from the Defendants. Further Defendants requests that the Court award Defendants their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in defending against such claims because the claims lack substantive justification and are frivolous. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41yHYIf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com The Defendant is represented by: Christina Harney, Esq. PLLC BECHTEL & SANTO 205 N. 4th Street, Suite 401 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Telephone: (970) 683-5839 E-mail: harney@bechtelsanto.com SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Lyngaas ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Civil Case No. 22-10830 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denies Solstice's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The lawsuit is a putative class action arising out of an unsolicited facsimile message sent to the Plaintiff and others by the Defendants in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., filed a Complaint on behalf of itself and persons similarly situated alleging that Solstice and Defendants unknown John Does 1-5, violated the TCPA by sending advertisements by fax to him and the other class members without their prior express invitation or permission. The Plaintiff is a dental practice located in Livonia, Michigan. Solstice is a dental insurance carrier and benefits administrator located in Plantation, Florida. On April 23, 2018, the Plaintiff received a fax of a one-page document from Solstice. According to the Plaintiff, the fax did not provide Solstice with any prior invitation or permission to send "an advertisement" and he did not have an established business relationship. He also believes that Solstice and John Doe Defendants sent faxes to over 40 other individuals. The matter is presently before the Court on Solstice's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed on Sept. 23, 2022. Judge Parker focuses her analysis on whether the fax is considered an advertisement under the TCPA. Solstice maintains that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as a matter of law because the document faxed to the Plaintiff is not an 'advertisement' under the TCPA. In determining whether the fax would be considered an "advertisement," the Sixth Circuit concluded that "an advertisement is any material that promotes the sale (typically to the public) of any property, goods, or services available to be bought or sold so some entity can profit." In response, the Plaintiff maintains that a fax can be a TCPA advertisement even where it does expressly offer anything for sale to or seek to directly profit from a transaction with the target of the fax. Judge Parker finds that the fax sent by Solstice was in fact an advertisement under the TCPA. Evidence in the record, including the fax and website, demonstrates that Solstice sent the fax with the hopes to make a profit indirectly and was seeking to attract clients or customers. Taken as a whole, the fax is at least an indirect commercial solicitation to promote the sale of its provider network service for the Plaintiff to purchase. For these reasons, Judge Parker finds that the April 23, 2018 fax sent to the Plaintiff by Solstice is an advertisement under the TCPA. As such, Solstice failed to demonstrate that it is "clearly entitled to judgment." Accordingly, Solstice's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfhra44 from Leagle.com. STUBHUB: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to June 5 in Refund Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit IN RE: STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION, Case No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties submits the following proposal for extending the current deadlines by two weeks: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline The Plaintiffs' Deadline to File May 22, 2023 June 5, 2023 Motion for Class Certification (and disclose class experts): The Defendant's Deadline to July 21, 2023 Aug. 4, 2023 Respond to Motion for Class Certification (and disclosure of class rebuttal experts) The Plaintiff's Deadline to Reply Sept. 1, 2023 Sept. 15, 2023 In Support of Class Certification Motion and Parties' Responses to Any Daubert Challenges: Hearing on Class Certification Sept. 28, 2023 Oct. 12, 2023 StubHub denies the assertions in the Plaintiffs' improper submission. The Plaintiffs have had many months to raise whatever concerns they had with StubHub's discovery, and Magistrate Judge Hixson has resolved several disputes between the parties. Now, the Plaintiffs seek another open-ended extension and lengthy delay of the proceedings. It is noteworthy that Magistrate Judge Hixson has recognized that The Plaintiffs' demands of StubHub have not been proportional to this case. StubHub is an American ticket exchange and resale company. It provides services for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports, concerts, theater, and other live entertainment events. It is the world's largest ticket marketplace. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MRy2po at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Steven L. Wittels, Esq. J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. Tiasha Palikovic, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 18 Half Mile Road Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 319-9945 Facsimile: (914) 273-2563 E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com jbm@wittelslaw.com tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: William P. Donovan, Jr., Esq. Daniel Campbell, Esq. Emilie O'Toole, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Telephone: (310) 277-4110 Facsimile: (310) 277-4730 E-mail: wdonovan@mwe.com dcampbell@mwe.com eotoole@mwe.com SUN US: General Pretrial Management Order Entered Polaris Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as POLARIS IMAGES CORP., v. THE SUN US, INC. n/k/a NEWS ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02978-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. -- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. -- Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KUABnI at no extra charge.[CC] SUPER-FARM ISRAEL: Settles Class Suit Over Empty Bottles Redemption ------------------------------------------------------------------- Shemesh reports that in 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Super-Pharm chain of pharmacies, claiming that some of its locations did not accept empty drink bottles as per the Deposit Law, and that others did not accept all bottles, but only bottles from brands sold at Super-Pharm. A settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and Super-Pharm this year. As part of this settlement, Super-Pharm will distribute 50,000 free 500ml bottles of the Life brand flavored water to users of the Super-Pharm mobile app. Users will receive a coupon in the app that can be redeemed for a bottle of flavored water from Super-Pharm. The coupon will give information to increase public awareness of the Deposit Law and will be limited to one coupon per customer. The value of this distribution is about NIS 340,000. [GN] THEATRE BOX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Browning Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SHANE BROWNING, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THEATRE BOX - SAN DIEGO, LLC; BROADWAY SUGAR FACTORY DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC; ELIE SAMAHA; CHARISSA DAVIDOVICI; TB SF PAYROLL & MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV08543 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 18, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Browning was employed by the Defendants as a staff. THEATRE BOX - SAN DIEGO, LLC specializes in motion picture theaters. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Jean H. Power, Esq. Amanda L. Fazio, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jean@tomorrowlaw.com jean@tomorrowlaw.com amanda@tomorrowlaw.com TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Doe Suit Remanded to L.A. County Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORRANCE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. CV 23-01237 DSF (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischerd of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the action to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On Jan. 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit in California Superior Court on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated California citizens who had their highly sensitive personal information disclosed to Facebook without their knowledge or consent. Doe alleges that Torrance promises patients and prospective patients that it will not disclose their Health Information for marketing purposes without their written authorization, but contrary to these assurances, Torrance does not follow the law prohibiting such disclosures. Doe alleges that since at least 2017, Torrance has disclosed protected health information to Facebook and other third parties without patients' knowledge authorization, or consent. Torrance has deployed various digital marketing and automatic rerouting tools embedded on its websites that purposefully and intentionally redirect personal health information to Facebook, who exploits that information for advertising purposes. On Feb. 17, 2023, Torrance removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), the federal officer removal statute. Doe moves to remand the action to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Torrance opposes. Judge Fischerd deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Torrance asserts that over the past two decades, the federal government has engaged in an extensive effort to build a nationwide health information technology infrastructure, and the case challenges the legitimacy of actions it has taken in connection with pursuing that directive. Torrance contends that it has dutifully assisted and followed the federal government's direction in a public-private initiative to develop a nationwide infrastructure for health information technology, and in doing so, has acted within the penumbra of federal action and office. It argues that it qualifies as a "person" under the statute and effectively acted under a federal officer. Doe asks the Court to reject Torrance's attempt to expand the federal officer removal statute. She argues that Torrance is not effectively acting under a federal officer and is not acting on behalf of a federal officer in a manner akin to an agency relationship. She contends that providing patient records is a private function, not a governmental task, and mere regulation or incentive through the MUP cannot turn a private hospital into an entity acting under a federal officer. Judge Fischerd holds that a private firm's compliance (or noncompliance) with federal laws, rules, and regulations does not by itself fall within the scope of the statutory phrase 'acting under' a federal 'official.' And that is so even if the regulation is highly detailed and even if the private firm's activities are highly supervised and monitored. Courts may not interpret Section 1442(a) to expand the scope of the statute considerably, potentially bringing within its scope state-court actions filed against private firms in many highly regulated industries. The directions Torrance points to are general regulations and public directives regarding the development of health information technology and an electronic health records infrastructure. Therefore, removal is not justified by federal officer jurisdiction. For these reasons, the motion to remand is granted and the case is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrtussb7 from Leagle.com. TWITTER INC: Zeman Sues Over Older Employees' Discharge From Jobs ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN ZEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC. and X CORP., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01786 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants on his own behalf and on behalf of other Twitter employees aged 50 or older across the country who have been discharged from their jobs during the chaotic months since multi-billionaire Elon Musk purchased Twitter. Shortly after Elon Musk completed his purchase of Twitter in October 2022, he immediately began laying off more than half of its workforce. Moreover, Mr. Musk has made publicly discriminatory remarks about older people, further confirming that the mass termination's greater impact on older employees resulted from discrimination, says the Plaintiff. Twitter, Inc. is an American social media company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. X Corp. is a technology company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com bmanewith@llrlaw.com ULTA SALON: Kabasele Loses Bid for Prelim. Approval of $1.5M Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DORCAS-COTHY KABASELE, an individual, Plaintiff v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01639 WBS CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement without prejudice. Kabasele, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, brought the putative class action against Ulta, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. According to the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint, Ulta employed the Plaintiff and the other proposed class members as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff brought the action for (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal breaks; (4) failure to provide rest breaks; (5) failure to pay sick pay; (6) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to pay wages due at end of employment; (8) failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures; (9) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; and (10) penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Cal. Lab. Code Section 2698 et seq. This lawsuit is one of four actions against Ulta covering similar class and PAGA claims. The other actions are Gonzalez v. Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00363 AB RAO (C.D. Cal.), a federal class and PAGA action; Arellano v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-00639 JGB KK (C.D. Cal.), a federal class action; and Arellano v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc., No. CIVSB2209151 (San Bernardino Super. Ct.), a state PAGA action. The proposed settlement would dispose of all four actions. All parties agreed to seek settlement approval only in this action; once the settlement receives final approval in this action and all class payments are distributed, the counsel in the Gonzalez and Arellano actions (state and federal) will voluntarily dismiss their cases. The putative class consists of all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of the Defendant statewide who worked for Ulta between Oct. 12, 2019 and Nov. 8, 2022. There are approximately 18,711 individuals in the putative class. The parties propose a gross settlement amount of $1.5 million, which includes the following: (1) $5,000 incentive awards for the three Lead Plaintiffs and $500 for each remaining named plaintiff, for a total of $27,000 in the Plaintiff incentive awards; (2) maximum attorneys' fees of $500,000, or 33.33% of the gross settlement amount; (3) settlement administration costs of approximately $65,000; and (4) $50,000 for PAGA penalties, of which 75% (i.e., $37,500) will be distributed to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and the remaining 25% will be distributed to individual class members. After deduction of the incentive awards, fees, costs, and the LWDA's share of penalties, the net settlement amount would be approximately $870,500, to be distributed to class members pro rata based on their number workweeks during the class period. The settlement would release defendant from any and all class claims that were pled or could have been pled based on the factual allegations in the operative or prior complaints, and any and all PAGA claims for civil penalties premised on the released class claims. A hearing on this unopposed motion for preliminary approval was set for March 6, 2023. Due to what was said to be an error in the briefing identified by the counsel during the hearing, the Court declined to hear further oral argument at that time. It subsequently issued an order explaining its evaluation of the initial briefing and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing. Judge Shubb explains that in determining whether the amount offered in settlement is fair, the Ninth Circuit has suggested that the Court compares the settlement amount to the parties' estimates of the maximum amount of damages recoverable in a successful litigation. The Plaintiff's counsel estimates that the "maximum" possible value of the claims is $26,379,927. This includes $8.95 million in statutory PAGA penalties. The gross settlement amount of $1.5 million constitutes 5.7% of the projected "maximum" possible recovery. Even looking solely at the non-PAGA portion of the settlement, the gross settlement amount constitutes 8.3% of the projected maximum recovery for the underlying wage and hour claims. Both percentages are lower than is typically approved. As the Court emphasized in its prior order, balancing the class' potential recovery against the amount offered in settlement is perhaps the most important factor to consider in preliminary approval, not a hollow exercise in which the Court blindly accepts the parties' unsupported assertions. In the case, Judge Shubb must conclude that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately establish that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate such that preliminary approval is warranted. Accordingly, he denies the motion for preliminary approval without prejudice to submission of a new motion consistent with the Order. Any future motion for preliminary approval and seeking class certification should, among other things, provide sufficient factual background to enable the court to meaningfully evaluate the settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ytaxwz2d from Leagle.com. UMBRIA OLII INTERNATIONAL: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Umbria Olii International USA, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Umbria Olii International USA, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03155 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Umbria Olii International USA, Inc. -- https://www.umbriaolii.com/ -- is an olive oil manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com UNCANNY BRANDS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uncanny Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Uncanny Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03156 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Uncanny Brands LLC -- https://uncannybrands.com/ -- is a multi-brand pop-culture consumer products company that manufactures small kitchen appliances branded with pop culture Icons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com UNITED SURGICAL: Perkins Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Amanda Perkins, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled AMANDA PERKINS; HEATHER C HOLST; TERRY J WILLAMS; TANYA C STANDIFER; and KARLEY MAYHILL, Plaintiffs v. UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL INC; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL INC; THE RETIREMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL INC; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-00973, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, filed on April 30, 2021, is a putative class action suit for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Plaintiffs are five former employees of United Surgical who previously participated in the now terminated United Surgical 401(k) Plan (the Plan). The Plan merged into the Tenet Healthcare Corporation 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan effective Jan. 1, 2019. All participant account balances were transferred to the Tenet Plan, and the United Surgical Plan ceased to exist. So, the Plaintiffs assert claims solely with respect to administration of the United Surgical Plan between April 15, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2018. On July 30, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case which the Court granted on March 18, 2022 through an Order entered by Judge Brantley Starr. On April 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. On May 13, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint which Judge Starr granted with prejudice on March 10, 2023. The appellate case is captioned as Perkins v. United Surgical Partners, Case No. 23-10375, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 11, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Amanda Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Defendants-Appellees United Surgical Partners International, Inc. and Retirement Plan Administration Committee of United Surgical Partners International, Inc. are represented by: Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P. 333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7396 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Snyder Seeks to Certify 401(k) Plan Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM SNYDER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC. et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-01049-JRT-DJF (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge John R. Tunheim entered an order: 1. certifying the Class defined below with respect to the Class Claims specified below during the Class Period (defined as April 23, 2015 through the date of judgment). a. Class Definition: All participants and beneficiaries of the UnitedHealth Group 401(k) Savings Plan (Plan) who, through the Plan, invested in the Wells Fargo Target Fund Suite, as defined in Section 2(c), infra, during the Class Period, excluding any individual who served during the Class Period as a member of UnitedHealth Group Incorporated's board of directors, the UnitedHealth Group Retirement Plan’s Investment Review Committee, or the UnitedHealth Group Employee Benefits Plans Investment Committee; and excluding any individual who served during the Class Period as UnitedHealth Group's Executive Vice President of Human Capital. b. Class Claims: (1) breach of the duty of prudence set forth in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) based on the Defendants' alleged failure to remove the Wells Fargo Target Fund Suite from the Plan within a reasonable time, (2) breach of the duty of loyalty set forth in ERISA based on Defendants' selection and/or retention of the Wells Fargo Target Fund Suite in the Plan, (3) prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA sections 406(a)(1)(D) and 406(b)(1) based on Defendants' selection and/or retention of the Wells Target Fund Suite in the Plan, (4) failure to act in accordance with documents and instruments governing the Plan based on Defendants' selection and/or retention of the Wells Fargo Target Fund Suite in the Plan, and (5) breach of the duties identified in Class Claims (1)-(4) based on the Defendants' alleged failure to monitor the individuals who possessed delegated authority to remove the Wells Fargo Target Fund Suite from the Plan. 2. Certifying Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP and specific attorneys from Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP to serve as class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1), and the Court appointed them as Class Counsel at Doc. 109; and 3. appointing David Sanford, Charles H. Field, Alexandra Harwin, Kevin Sharp, Leigh Anne St. Charles, and Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP as Class Counsel in this case as to all Class Claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1). UnitedHealth is a for-profit American multinational managed healthcare and insurance company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. A copy of the Court’s order dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L7X16A at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Agrees to Settle Breach Class Suit for $5-M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Wu of 9News reports that the University of Colorado (CU) has settled a $5 million class action lawsuit concerning denial of access to student services that were already paid for during the COVID-19 shutdown of spring 2020. The lawsuit, which was filed against the University of Colorado system on April 18, 2020, alleges breach of contract and unjust enrichment which resulted from the cancellation of in-person classes and closure of the campuses in March 2020. According to the law firm representing the students, CU charged students millions in fees to access various student services at the beginning of the semester. However, once the shutdown began, CU had refused to give any money back as a result of services no longer being available. "The pandemic was tough for everyone," said Igor Raykin, an attorney representing the students. "It was the right decision to shut down a lot of facilities and services. But it was the wrong decision for public schools to keep money for services they weren't providing. Students generally are cash poor in the first place, and it's not fair to keep their money when they're getting nothing in return." The $5 million settlement covers all students who were enrolled at CU during the spring 2020 semester at the Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver and Anschutz campuses. Students will have 180 days from the start of the payment redemption period - which is anticipated to start at some point this summer - to collect their piece of the settlement. For more information about the case, you can visit cucovidsettlement.com. [GN] UOFL HEALTH INC: Blandford Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rhonda Blandford, individually, and as Mother and Next Friend of C.S., on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated next friend C.S. v. UofL Health, Inc., University of Louisville Physicians, Inc. doing business as: UofL Physicians, Case No. 23-CI-001809 was removed from the Jefferson Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on April 17, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00192-DJH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. UofL Health -- http://www.uoflhealth.org/-- is a fully integrated regional academic health system based in Louisville, Kentucky formed by the reorganization of KentuckyOne Health in conjunction with the acquisition of that system by the University of Louisville from Catholic Health Initiatives in 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff are represented by: Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: amize@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC - NASHVILLE 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 255-5419 Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 The Defendants are represented by: Aaron W. Marcus, Esq. Benjamin Joel Lewis, Esq. Kyle W. Miller, Esq. DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEBAUM LLP - LOUISVILLE 101 S. 5th Street, Suite 3500 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 587-3543 Fax: (502) 540-2199 Email: aaron.marcus@dentons.com ben.lewis@dentons.com kyle.miller@dentons.com - and - Lincoln J. Carr, Esq. DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEBAUM, LLP - LOUISVILLE 3500 PNC Tower 101 Fifth Street Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 587-3539 Email: lincoln.carr@dentons.com VALERIE A. ARKOOSH: Daddazio Files ADA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valerie A. Arkoosh. The case is styled as Mark Daddazio, Patricia Blauser, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Valerie A. Arkoosh, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Pennsyvlania Department of Human Services, Case No. 1:23-cv-00635-YK (M.D. Pa., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Valerie A. Arkoosh is an American anesthesiologist, politician, and academic.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brynne S. Madway, Esq. Rhonda Brownstein, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA 1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 238-8070 x210 Fax: (215) 772-3126 Email: bmadway@disabilityrightspa.org rbrownstein@disabilityrightspa.org VARIEL SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arias Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MACSIMINA ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE VARIEL SERVICES, LLC; MOMENTUM SENIOR LIVING LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCVO8569 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 18, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Arias was employed by the Defendants as a staff. THE VARIEL SERVICES, LLC offers independent living, assisted living and memory care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Jean H. Power, Esq. Amanda L. Fazio, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com jean@tomorrowlaw.com amanda@tomorrowlaw.com VERTEX ENERGY: Sells Securities at Inflated Prices, Passmore Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM C. PASSMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERTEX ENERGY, INC., BENJAMIN P. COWART, and CHRIS CARLSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00128 (S.D. Ala., April 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading statements to investors in order to trade Vertex securities at artificially inflated prices between April 1, 2022 and August 8, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose the following pertaining to the company's business, operations, and prospects: (a) prior to the acquisition of the Mobile refinery, the Defendants had entered into inventory and crack spread hedging derivatives that significantly capped the profit margins on 50 percent of the Mobile refinery's expected output over the period April 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022; (b) prior to the acquisition of the Mobile refinery, the Defendants had entered into an inventory intermediation agreement with the investment bank Macquarie Group; (c) prior to the acquisition of the Mobile refinery, the Defendants had entered into an inventory purchase agreement with Shell Oil as part of the Mobile acquisition agreement; (d) immediately following the acquisition of the Mobile refinery, Vertex experienced production issues that caused significant shortfalls in refined fuel volumes; (e) following the acquisition of the Mobile refinery, the Defendants overstated the purported profit margins that could be achieved at the refinery; and (f) as a result of the above misrepresentations and concealed facts, the Mobile refinery did not generate strong EBITDA during the first 30 days of operations and the Mobile refinery transition was not seamless. When the truth emerged, the price of Vertex common stock collapsed by $6.18 per share, or 44 percent, on August 9, 2022, on abnormally high trading volume of more than 27 million shares traded, says the suit. Vertex Energy, Inc. is an energy company based in Mobile, Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sidney W. Jackson III, Esq. JACKSON & FOSTER, LLC 75 St. Michael Street Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-6699 - and - Roger H. Bedford, Jr., Esq. ROGER BEDFORD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC P.O. Box 1149 Russellville, AL 35653 Telephone: (256) 332-6966 - and - Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 VITACOST.COM INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitacost.com, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Vitacost.com, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03154 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vitacost.com, Inc. -- https://www.vitacost.com/ -- is an American e-commerce company based in Boca Raton, Florida, that sells vitamins, supplements and organic grocery products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com WEST END CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beck Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JIMMY BECK; JEFF CANTRELL; JEFFERY CLARK; BILLY RAY DIXON; and SHAWN DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEST END CONSTRUCTION, LLC; and CHRIS SUTTON, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00367 (M.D. Tenn., April 18, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as drivers. WEST END CONSTRUCTION, LLC is a commercial & residential firm, offering paving, milling, trucking and excavation. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. King, Jr., Esq. ESKINS KING & MARNEY, PC 200 Jefferson Ave., Suite 1510 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 578-6902 Email: jking@eskinsking.com WHEELS UP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. of BusinessWire reports that if you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 19, 2023 in a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Wheels Up Experience Inc. (NYSE: UP) between November 9, 2022 and March 31, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wheels Up investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Wheels Up class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=14081 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. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Wheels Up failed to address any material weaknesses with internal controls; (2) Wheels Up's financial statements from September 30, 2022 to the present included "certain errors" such as understating net loss and overstating goodwill; (3) as a result, Wheels Up would need to restate its previously filed financial statements for certain periods; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. 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. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6662 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contacts 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] WILMINGTON SAVINGS: Murray Files FDCPA Suit in D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, et al. The case is styled as Mary J. Murray, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Franklin Credit Management Corporation, Brock & Scott, PLLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01023-JKB (D. Md., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. WSFS Financial Corporation -- https://www.wsfsbank.com/ -- is a financial services company. Its primary subsidiary, WSFS Bank, a federal savings bank, is the largest and longest-standing locally managed bank and trust company headquartered in Delaware and the Greater Delaware Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO 3925 Chain Bridge Road Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7572 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com XANADU MARKETING: Jenkins Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XANADU MARKETING, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00387 (W.D. Mich., April 17, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of the Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of the Missouri. The Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the state of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com XAVIER UNIVERSITY: Sanchez Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xavier University of Louisiana. The case is styled as Kellie Sanchez, Karen Fairman, Duc Lai, Christine Tran, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Xavier University of Louisiana, Case No. 2:23-cv-01269-JCZ-DPC (E.D. La., April 14, 2023). The nature suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort Negligence. Xavier University of Louisiana -- https://www.xula.edu/ -- is a private, historically black, Catholic university in New Orleans, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon Stephen McGill, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JON S. MCGILL DBA JSM LAW 500 Lafayette Street Gretna, LA 70053 Phone: (504) 208-5551 Fax: (504) 336-2384 Email: jon@jonsmcgilllaw.com ZHANGMEN EDUCATION: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the motions to dismiss filed by Zhangmen Education, Inc., the Individual Defendants, the Underwriter Defendants, and the Cogency Global Defendants in the case captioned as SAURAV BANERJEE, et al., Plaintiffs v. ZHANGMEN EDUCATION INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-9634 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.). On Nov. 21, 2021, the Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action, with Saurav Banerjee as named Plaintiff, on behalf of similarly situated shareholders that purchased stock in connection with Zhangmen's Initial Public Offering prior July 23, 2021. Banerjee sued Zhangmen, the Individual Defendants, the Underwriter Defendants, and the Cogency Global Defendants. This case concerns alleged misrepresentations in connection with the IPO of American Depositary Shares in Zhangmen. Zhangmen filed a Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Judge Oetken finds that Zhangmen's Registration Statement included extensive precautionary disclosures of possible regulatory risks. He explains that "if these cautionary statements were sufficient to put reasonable investors on notice about the nature, extent, and magnitude of the adverse regulatory actions taken by the People's Republic of China after July 23, 2021, then, under the bespeaks caution doctrine, there can be no Section 11 liability because no later event or disclosure added to the mix of information available to the reasonable investor." Moreover, Judge Oetken finds that "Zhangmen was clear that if this is an opinion statement, it is one based on its consultations with (1) its own lawyers and (2) relevant PRC regulators. The Amended Complaint does not plead that either of these consultations did not occur or that Zhangmen's belief was substantially based on anything but them. The Plaintiffs, moreover, fail to isolate a misstatement regarding permitting specifically: At no point does the Amended Complaint allege that Zhangmen represented permitting as a done deal, nor do Plaintiffs claim it did. Rather, Zhangmen stated that it believed it was 'likely' to receive permitting under the then-unknown set of regulations that were pending and undisclosed at the time of the IPO on a disclosed basis." Finally, Judge Oetken has dismissed Item 303 Trend Statement Claims of the Amended Complaint for "three independent reasons: First, courts in this district have dismissed residual Item 303 claims where, as here, they are mere "redundant" restatements of otherwise-failed Section 11 complaints due to the clear overlap in standards. Second, the Plaintiffs allege no misstatement or omission separate from the rest of their allegations, and unique to Item 303, to support any inference of falsity or omission. Third, the Defendants complied with Item 303's disclosure obligations -- They did disclose all negative events, trends, and the like associated with adverse Chinese government actions at the time of their IPO." Judge Oetken explains that if all the known parts of an Item 303 "trend" are effectively disclosed, then Item 303 liability can be established by satisfying a 'soft' knowledge element. . . 303 claims are subject to the requirement that, at minimum, a trend be 'known' to a defendant when the alleged wrongful statements occurred." Judge Oetken finds and concludes that the Amended Complaint is premised on disavowing any allegation of knowledge in favor of "negligence," and the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard. A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/kzk72zcz from Leagle.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***