/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230428.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 28, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 86 Headlines A-1 COLLECTION: Continuance of Stay of Merit Discovery Sought ACER THERAPEUTICS: Settles Sell Shareholder Suit Over VEDS Meds ALASKA AIR: Causes Harm on Health of 300,000 Residents, Suit Says ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Certifies Class in Boston Retirement ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: May 22 Class Cert. Filing Sought AMA CAPITAL: Denial of Contant's Class Settlement Claims Affirmed AMAZON.COM INC: Diaz FTSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. AMERICAN BAR: Faces Troy Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Kain Shareholder Suit Ongoing ANDY FRAIN: Shamblin Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ART+1 INC: Class Action Settlement in Sanchez Gets Final Nod ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA: Fraud Claim in Eaton Junked w/o Prejudice ATELIER LUXURY GROUP: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York AUSTIN LIFESTYLE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BAKER HUGHES CO: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Delaware BAKER HUGHES CO: Faces Reckstin Securities Class Suit in N.D. Cal. BAYER CORP: Remand of Heidger Suit to Missouri State Court Denied CELSIUS NETWORK: Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel Named in Goines Suit CENTIMARK CORP: Court Narrows Wage & Hour Claims in Lingle Suit CHARTER FOODS: Class Action Filed Over January 2023 Data Breach CLOVER HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $22-M COCA-COLA CO: Fritch Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CREMATION SERVICES: Ill. App. Affirms Summary Judgment for Peerless D&A SERVICES: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Deutsch FDCPA Suit DAKTRONICS INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in Ney York Court DIAMONDBACK E&P: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 28 DNC SERVICES: $3.5M Class Settlement in Katz Suit Has Prelim. Nod DNC SERVICES: Final Settlement Hearing in Katz Suit Set for Sept. 1 DOMO INC: Volonte Appeals Dismissal of Shareholder Suit DON ROBERTO: Agrees to Settle Flores Data Breach Suit for $4-M DOORDASH INC: Suit Alleges Consumers Scammed by Predatory Pricing DR. MYLISSA'S MEDICAL: Orsino-Esiyok Sues Over Unsolicited Calls EAGLE NATIONAL: Approval of Class Notice Plan Sought in Wilson EL CAMINO FORT: Kelly Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages EXICURE INC: Faces Colwell Shareholder Suit in Illinois Court FANEUIL INC: Fails to Compensate All Hours Worked, McCune Suit Says FIELD WARES LLC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FIRST TRANSIT: Pendleton Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Djedi Order Class Suit Without Prejudice FREIDA ROTHMAN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FURNISHARE INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GBNY PRODUCTIONS: Vickers Files Suit in E.D. New York GEICO INDEMNITY: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Title & Transfer Fees GLADSTONE AUTO: Court Grants Bids in Limine in Ferguson Class Suit GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Suit Over Drug Zetia for $87.5M GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Inaccessible 5G SA Network GREYHOUND LINES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 1 H&K ENGINEERING: Parties Must Submit Joint Status Report by May 3 HARRINGTON RACEWAY: Holye Files Suit in D. Delaware HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Franklin Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: $1-M Deal in Contractors' Suit Gets Final OK HENKEL CORP: Laundry Detergent Label Overstates Number, Suit Says HY-VEE INC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in White Suit ILLUMINATE EDUCATION: Class Suit Over Data Breach Dismissed INTERCURE LTD: Class Action Approval Over Cannabis Ads' Sought KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Sets Aside EUR575-M Ahead of Suit Over CPAP LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Murphy Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA MARATHON DIGITAL: Faces Moreno Suit Over 8.31% Stock Price Drop MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Bid Granted; Miller Suit Dismissed MBR FARMS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Labor Trafficking MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Accused of Misleading Investors in Suit MONSANTO CO: Long Beach Gets Settlement Checks From PCBs Suit NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Grants Teran's Bid for Class Certification NEWMARCH HOUSE: Sued Over Aged Care Home COVID-19 Deaths NIKE INC: D.C. Court Dismisses Grimsley Suit Without Prejudice OKTA INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Insider-Trading Allegations PLDT INC: Asks Court to Deny Class Suit Over Misleading Statements PORTOPICCOLO GROUP: Hooker, et al., Class Certification Bid Denied PRAIRIE MEADOWS: Refusal to Certify Benda as Class Action Affirmed RCI DINING: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers as Contractors, Suit Says REALPAGE INC: Johnson Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee RESORTS WORLD: Campodonico Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. SECURITAS SECURITY: Ulloa Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. SINGTEL OPTUS: Hit With Class Action Over Cybersecurity Breach TIKTOK INC: E.K. Privacy Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. TIKTOK INC: Fleming Wiretapping Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. TIKTOK INC: Kowalski Wiretapping Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. TMX FINANCE: Eimert Files Suit Over Data Breach TOTAL MOBILE: Court Denies Katz's Bid for Leave to Take Discovery TRANSCO LINES: Brown FLSA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Ark. UNILEVER UNITED: Simmons Benzene Suit Transferred to Connecticut UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Class Deal in Arredondo Suit Wins Final OK VENUS CONCEPT INC: Settles Yzeiraj Shareholder Suit in CA Court VENUS CONCEPT: Faces Li Shareholder Suit in CA Superior Court VENUS CONCEPT: Faces Wong Shareholder Suit in CA Superior Court VENUS CONCEPT: Settles Guerrini Shareholder Suit in CA Court VITAL FARMS: Joint Bid to Quash Additional Nonparty Subpoena OK'd WALMART INC: Wins Bid to File GAIN Guide Under Seal WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due August 30 WAWA INC: Shawn, Mcglade Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class of Employees WEBSTER BANK: Faces Investigation Over Alleged Data Breach Claims WELLS FARGO: California Court Trims Fraud Claims in McCraner Suit [*] Major CRA Faces Class Action Over SSN Verification Issues [*] Sen. Gillibrand Speaker at May 8 Class Action Conference Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Defends Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYCAL Court Upholds $15MM Kaiser Gypsum Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Receives A&E Exposure Claims ********* A-1 COLLECTION: Continuance of Stay of Merit Discovery Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FULLMER, SEAN MCINTYRE, SABRINA PROVO, and all others similarly situated, v. A-1 COLLECTION AGENCY, LLC and MOAB VALLEY HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00143-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Parties file a joint motion to continue stay of merit discovery until class certification is resolved. The Parties request that merit discovery remain stayed until class certification has been resolved. Within 14 days of the Court's order resolving Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Parties will submit a proposed scheduled order for merit discovery. On October 28, 2021, the Court adopted the parties' stipulated scheduling order. As part of the Scheduling Order, discovery was partitioned into two parts, class and merit discovery, with merit discovery stayed until the Court decided class certification. On May 27th, 2022, the Plaintiffs Sean McIntyre and Sabrina Provo moved to certify a class. On August 15th, 2022, Defendant A-1 Collection Agency filed a motion for summary judgment challenging the merits of the claims. In response, the Plaintiffs filed a Rule 56(d) Motion requesting an opportunity to conclude merit discovery before the Court resolved the Summary Judgment Motion. On March 30, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) Motion and denied the Motion for Summary Judgment Motion without prejudice with leave to refile upon completion of merit discovery. The Court, recognizing the stay on merit discovery, ordered the parties to meet and confer as to a schedule for merit discovery. On April 13 and 14, the Parties conferred regarding merit discovery. A1 Collection specializes in collecting medical debt and overdue fees. A copy of the Parties motion dated April 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43LGTyK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel M. Baczynski, Esq. BACZYNSKI LAW, PLLC 12339 S. 800 E., Ste 101 Draper, UT 84020 Telephone: (708) 715-2234 E-mail: dan@bskilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Spencer W. Young, Esq. STRONG & HANNI 102 S 200 E STE 800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-7080 - and - Ronald F. Price, Esq PRICE PARKINSON & KERR, PLLC 5742 W, Harold Gatty Dr. Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Telephone: (801) 530-2900 ACER THERAPEUTICS: Settles Sell Shareholder Suit Over VEDS Meds --------------------------------------------------------------- Acer Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2023, that on July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action lawsuit, "Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al.," No. 1:19-cv-06137GHW, against the company, Chris Schelling and Harry Palmin, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged that the company violated federal securities laws by allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the likelihood of FDA approval for the drug EDSIVO, used for the treatment of patients with COL3A1-positive vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (VEDS). With the selection of a lead plaintiff, the case was later captioned Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al. The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this action for a payment of $8.4 million, which was approved by the court in January 7, 2022. As of December 31, 2021, the company had recognized liabilities of $8.4 million for the proposed settlement and of $0.9 million for costs related to both the derivative and class action cases in other current liabilities and had also recognized an asset of an equal amount in other current assets representing the recovery from its insurance carriers of an equal amount. Both the liabilities and the asset were derecognized during the year ending December 31, 2022, as payment of the settlement was made by the company's insurance carriers Acer Therapeutics Inc. is a pharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for serious rare and life-threatening diseases based in Massachusetts. ALASKA AIR: Causes Harm on Health of 300,000 Residents, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Renata Geraldo at Seattle Times reports that a potential class-action lawsuit filed alleges that the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Alaska Air Group and Delta Air Lines are polluting King County towns within a 5-mile radius of the airport. Consequences, the lawsuit alleges, include shorter life expectancy compared with other King County cities; premature births; over 100 excess deaths per year on average; and more deaths caused by cancer, heart disease and chronic lower respiratory disease. The suit was filed in King County Superior Court by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. "When planes take off and land from Sea-Tac Airport, the jet fuel they burn spews pollutants into the atmosphere," the suit states. "Particulate matter can also flake off from the bodies of the airplanes themselves during flight, further contaminating the surrounding environment." In a statement, a Port of Seattle spokesperson said 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." The spokesperson said agencies that establish the requirements include the Federal Aviation Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, King County, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Delta and Alaska did not immediately respond to inquiries. Nearly 300,000 people live in the 5-mile radius noted in the suit, which includes Burien, Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila. More than half of residents represent racial or ethnic minorities including Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, according to the suit. [GN] ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Certifies Class in Boston Retirement ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD BELL, DAVID L. HALLAL, VIKAS SINHA, DAVID BRENNAN, DAVID J. ANDERSON, LUDWIG N. HANTSON, and CARSTEN THIEL, Case No. 3:16-cv-02127-AWT (D. Conn.), Hon. Judge Alvin W. Thompson entered a ruling on motion for class certification as follows: 1. Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Co-Class Counsel is granted. 2. The following class is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from January 30, 2014, to May 26, 2017, inclusive (the Class Period) and who were damaged thereby (the Class), excluding Defendants; members of the immediate families of the Individual Defendants; Alexion's subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who is or was an officer or director of Alexion or any of the Company’s subsidiaries or affiliates during the Class Period; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any such excluded person or entity." 3. Lead Plaintiffs Erste Asset Management GmbH and the Public Employee Retirement System of Idaho are each appointed Class Representatives of the Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). 4. Lead Counsel Motley Rice LLC and Labaton Sucharow LLP are appointed as Co-Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to Rule 23(g). Alexion is a Boston, Massachusetts-based pharmaceutical company that specializes in the development and manufacture of drugs used to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated April13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41L4FZS at no extra charge.[CC] ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: May 22 Class Cert. Filing Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHMUEL COHEN, YEHUDA FISCHER, ELIEZER ROSENBERGER and MAYER TANNENBAUM on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS, LLC d/b/a PERFORMANCE FIRST and AUTOGUARD ADVANTAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-03411-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the plaintiffs file unopposed motion for extension to file class certification and dispositive motions, up to May 22, 2023 By Order dated October 10, 2022, the Court approved the Parties' joint motion revising the case schedule, providing until April 21, 202,3 for the Parties to file their dispositive motions and class certification motions. All Parties consent to the requested extension and this is the first request for an extension of this deadline. The Plaintiffs' counsel makes this request because of several unplanned, urgent matters as well as the heavy press of other existing case deadlines, and the recent departure of several staff members. This extension will not prejudice any party, nor will it interfere with any scheduled dates in this matter. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oxsNAY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Evan S. Rothfarb, Esq. Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 1303 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 500-6114 Facsimile: (646-612-7996 E-mail: erothfarb@consumerprotection.net dschlanger@consumerprotection.net - and - Eliahu Sarfaty, Esq. SARFATY & ASSOCIATES, PC 1 North Sherri Lane Wesley Hills, NY 10977 Telephone: 845-377-5845 Facsimile: 212-401-4720 E-mail: eli@sarfatylaw.com - and - Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 AMA CAPITAL: Denial of Contant's Class Settlement Claims Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, JAMES CONTANT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, MARTIN-HAN TRAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, CARLOS GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, UGNIUS MATKUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, JERRY JACOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, PAUL VERMILLION, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, SANDRA LAVENDER, VICTOR HERNANDEZ, FX PRIMUS LTD., CHARLES G. HITCHCOCK, III, TINA PORTER, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. AMA CAPITAL, LLC, Movant-Appellant, Case Nos. 21-3058 (L), 22-19 (Con), 22-159 (Con) (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the district court's rulings on both AMA's claims under the settlement agreement and the denial of its motion to intervene. In 2013, individuals and entities who directly purchased foreign-exchange products from various international banks brought a class action alleging that the banks conspired with each other to fix prices in the foreign-exchange market; the parties ultimately settled that suit in August 2018 -- In re Foreign Exch. Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig. (FOREX), No. 13-cv-7789 (LGS) (Aug. 6, 2018, S.D.N.Y.). Separately, in 2017, the Plaintiffs -- a group of investors in foreign-exchange products -- brought this class action ("Contant") against the banks, alleging that through various retail foreign-exchange dealers ("RFEDs"), the Plaintiffs indirectly purchased foreign-exchange products from the banks at prices that were inflated as a result of the price-fixing conspiracy. By July 2020, the parties in this action agreed to resolve all indirect claims as part of a $23.6 million settlement. On Nov. 19, 2020, the district court granted final approval of the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. As relevant here, the settlement agreement approved by the district court defined the class to include "all persons and entities who indirectly purchased an instrument from a defendant or co-conspirator by entering into an instrument with a member of the FOREX settlement class, where the FOREX settlement class member entered into the instrument directly with a defendant or co-conspirator." AMA is a claimant of the antitrust class-action settlement. The settlement agreement at issue required that each claimant substantiate its claims with such documents as class counsel and the claims administrator, in their discretion, deemed acceptable. The settlement agreement also provided each claimant with the opportunity to (1) remedy deficiencies in its claims before the claims administrator issued its decision, and (2) if the claims administrator rejected its claims in whole or in part, contest the claims administrator's decision within 21 days of the mailing of the rejection notice. The claims administrator rejected most of AMA's claims because, among other things, AMA repeatedly failed to provide the requisite transactional records to support its claims. The district court (Schofield, J.) agreed and also denied AMA's motion for reconsideration based on documents it submitted subsequent to the claims administrator's rejection. AMA timely appealed the district court's rulings on both its claims under the settlement agreement and the denial of its motion to intervene. It argues primarily that the district court erred by (1) failing to consider documents it submitted during the contest period, (2) rejecting its claims based on improper evidentiary requirements, and (3) denying its motion to intervene in the class action for the sole purpose of appeal. The Second Circuit concludes (1) that the claims administrator was not required to accept records during the contest process that were previously available to AMA, which is akin to a motion for reconsideration, and (2) that the district court did not err by denying AMA's claims on the grounds that they lacked the requisite transactional records. For these reasons, the Second Circuit affirms the orders of the district court on appeal in Nos. 21-3058 and 22-159. Moreover, because AMA has standing as a class member to appeal any denial of its claims, it dismisses as moot the appeal in No. 22-19, which challenges the district court's denial of AMA's motion to intervene. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ypksptu8 from Leagle.com. SCOTT O. LUSKIN -- sol@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears LLP, El Segundo, CA (Damian R. Cavaleri -- dcavaleri@hnrklaw.com -- Hoguet Newman -- fnewman@hnrklaw.com -- Regal & Kenney, LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for the Movant-Appellant. MICHAEL DELL'ANGELO -- mdellangelo@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA (Robert B. McCulley, McCulley McCluer LLC, Charleston, SC; Michael J. Kane -- mkane@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, on the brief), for the Plaintiffs-Appellees. AMAZON.COM INC: Diaz FTSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2023-002505-CA-01 (Filed Feb. 14, 2023) was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, State of Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 30, 2023. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-21231-DPG to the proceedings. The complaint purports to assert a single cause of action under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, seeking statutory damages, an injunction, and attorneys'’ fees. The Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of herself and "all persons in Florida who, at any time since July 1, 2021, received a telephonic sales call made by or on behalf of Defendant using the same type of equipment used to make telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff." Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April Boyer, Esq. Mallory Cooney, Esq. K&L GATES LLP Southeast Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Ste. 3900 Miami, FL 33131-2399 Telephone: (305) 539-3300 Facsimile: (305) 358-7095 E-mail: april.boyer@klgates.com mallory.cooney@klgates.com AMERICAN BAR: Faces Troy Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Caroline Hill of Legal Insider reports that the American Bar Association has been served with a class action lawsuit alleging that it failed to secure and safeguard its members personal data, following a breach of its network at the beginning of March. The ABA informed affected members on 20 April that on March 17, 2023, it observed unusual activity on its network, triggering its incident response plan. An investigation determined that an unauthorized third party gained access to the ABA network beginning on or about March 6, 2023 and may have acquired "certain information." On March 23, 2023, the investigation identified that an unauthorized third party acquired usernames and hashed and salted passwords used to access online accounts on the old ABA website prior to 2018 or the ABA Career Center since 2018. On 21 April, plaintiff Tiffany Troy from employment litigation firm Troy Law filed a class action on behalf of herself and others "similarly situated", alleging that the ABA's security failures had enabled hackers to steal personal and financial data, putting class members' personal and financial information at serious and ongoing risk. The claim, issued in The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that the hackers continue to user the information they obtained as a result of the ABA's "inadequate security" to exploit and injure class members across the United States. The claim further alleges that the breach was caused by and enabled by the ABA’s "knowing violation of its obligations to abide by best practices and industry standards in protecting customers personal information," and that the ABA "grossly failed to comply with security standards and allowed its customers' financial information to be compromised, all in an effort to save money by cutting corners on security measures that could have prevented or mitigated the breach." The action claims that the ABA failed to uncover or disclose the breach in a timely manner and take other reasonable steps to inform its customers of the nature and the extent of the breach, preventing class members from protecting themselves. Damages are sought in excess of $5m. The ABA told Legal IT Insider that it does not comment pending litigation. However, in a statement on the data breach itself, ABA president Deborah Enix-Ross said: "The ABA takes seriously its responsibility to protect private data. We are gratified that a breach by a threat actor was discovered within 11 days of access." "While the threat actor obtained some customer usernames and coded passwords, which were salted and hashed, an outside investigation determined no credit card numbers, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers or other sensitive personally identifiable information were accessed. The accessed data was for the old ABA website used prior to 2018, not the current website. Some of the credentials are used for the ABA Career Center." Enix-Ross added: "We have seen no increased use of the login credentials and no evidence of the accessed data being used. Several steps have been taken to prevent future breaches and inform those affected. The ABA apologizes for the inconvenience this incident has caused." Here is ABA's email of 20 April in full: This letter is to inform you of a data security incident that impacted the username and salted and hashed password you may have used to access your American Bar Association ("ABA") online account prior to 2018 on the old ABA website, or the ABA Career Center since 2018. The ABA takes the security of your information very seriously and sincerely apologizes for any concern this incident may cause. While the ABA has no indication that your personal information has been misused, this letter contains information about what occurred, actions that have been taken to prevent a reoccurrence, and steps you can take to protect your information. What happened? On March 17, 2023, the ABA observed unusual activity on its network. The incident response plan was immediately activated response, and cybersecurity experts were retained to assist with the investigation. The investigation determined that an unauthorized third party gained access to the ABA network beginning on or about March 6, 2023 and may have acquired certain information. On March 23, 2023, the investigation identified that an unauthorized third party acquired usernames and hashed and salted passwords that you may have used to access online accounts on the old ABA website prior to 2018 or the ABA Career Center since 2018. What information was involved? The personal information involved the username and hashed and salted password you may have used to log into the old ABA website before 2018 or the ABA Career Center since 2018. To be clear, the passwords were not exposed in plain text. They were instead both hashed and salted, which is a process by which random characters are added to the plain text password, which is then converted on the ABA systems into cybertext. In addition, in many instances, the password may have been the default password assigned to you by the ABA, if you never changed that password on the old ABA site. The ABA is notifying all affected individuals in an abundance of caution. Although the ABA changed its website log-in platform in 2018 and asked each user to create new credentials, if you utilized the same credentials to access the new ABA website, www.americanbar.org, please update your password at your earliest convenience. What we are doing. The ABA takes the security of your information seriously and has taken measures to reduce the likelihood of a future cyber-attack, including removing the unauthorized third party from the ABA network and reviewing network security configurations to address continually evolving cyber threats. What you can do. Although the ABA has received no reports of misuse of your or anyone's information, you are encouraged to change any passwords which may be the same as or similar to the password at issue in this incident and remain vigilant against any unauthorized attempts to access your online accounts. If you would like to continue to use the ABA Career Center, you should consider changing your password in an abundance of caution. Your state law may require the ABA to provide additional information about identity theft, which is provided for you here. Anyone who is concerned that they have been affected is urged to call the ABA. [GN] AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Kain Shareholder Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2023, that on August 17, 2022, a putative Ampio shareholder filed a securities fraud class action against the company, its current CEO Michael A. Martino and two former executives, Michael Macaluso and Holli Cherevka, in the United States District court for the District of Colorado, captioned "Kain v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 22-cv-2105. The complaint alleges that Ampio and the individual defendants made various false and misleading statements regarding the efficacy, clinical trials and FDA communications relating to Ampio's lead product, "Ampion," and its treatment of severe osteoarthritis of the knee in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint also asserts control person liability against the individual defendants under Section 20 of the Exchange Act. The complaint relies largely on Ampio's announcement on May 16, 2022, that it had formed a special Board committee to investigate the statistical analysis of Ampio's AP-013 clinical trial and the unauthorized provision of Ampion to various individuals who were not participating in clinical trials, and Ampio's further announcement on August 3, 2022, that the investigation had revealed that various employees were aware that the AP-013 trial did not demonstrate efficacy for Ampion's primary endpoints and did not fully and timely report the results of the trial and the timing of unblinding data from the trial. Based on the company's reports, the Complaint asserts that various statements made by the company during the Class Period were false and misleading because they: (i) inflated Ampio's ability to successfully obtain FDA approval for Ampion; (ii) inflated the results of the AP-013 clinical trial and failed to disclose the timing of unblinding the data from the study; and (iii) overstated the company's business, operations and prospects. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs. In October 17, 2022, six putative shareholders filed motions seeking to be named lead plaintiff. In November 7, 2022, two of the movants filed oppositions to each other's motions; the remaining movants either withdrew their motions or filed non-oppositions to another putative shareholder's motion. The court has not yet ruled on the competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff. In the interim, the court approved the parties' joint motion to stay proceedings, and all deadlines are deferred until after a decision on the lead plaintiff motion(s). Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pre-revenue stage biopharmaceutical company based in Colorado. ANDY FRAIN: Shamblin Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- FRANK SHAMBLIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v. ANDY FRAIN SERVICES, INC., COHESIVE NETWORKS 2, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0001645 (Filed Feb. 23, 2023) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00605 to the proceeding. This is a putative wage-and-hour class action. The Plaintiff defines the class he seeks to represent as "all non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants as security guards in California from October 30, 2019, to the date of certification or judgment." Between October 30, 2019, and March 20, 2023, the Defendants have employed more than 100 employees in California who were not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Andy Frain provides integrated solutions to security and events needs.[BN] Defendant Andy Frain Services is represented by: Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq. Christopher J. Truxler, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP E-Mail: calvarez@fisherphillips.com ctruxler@fisherphillips.com 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 210-0400 Facsimile: (916) 210-0401 ART+1 INC: Class Action Settlement in Sanchez Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR SANCHEZ, et al., v. ART+1, INC., et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-05623-SN (S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn entered an order granting final approval of class and collective action settlement. The class and collective action settlement is approved, the Defendants' motion for sanctions is granted, and the Defendants may deduct $15,000 from the Final Settlement Sum, which amount shall be reduced from the Plaintiffs' counsel's application for an attorneys' fee award. Art+1 is a general contractor specializing in the residential and commercial sector with expertise in retail, corporate interiors and core. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MYkd8s at no extra charge.[CC] ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA: Fraud Claim in Eaton Junked w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CHRISTOPHER EATON, et al., v. ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA, LLC., Case No. 2:19-cv-03412-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for an order dismissing the fraud claim without prejudice. As the parties correctly point out, the Sixth Circuit does not permit voluntary dismissal of less than an entire action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. However, again as the parties properly suggest, Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to amend its pleading by leave of court that "shall be freely given when justice so requires, " provides an alternative mechanism to eliminate the fraud claim. The Court finds here that justice requires removal of the fraud claim from this action. Accordingly, the Court deems 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 will simplify the case going forward and has no effect on the prior class certification. Ascent Resources operates as an oil exploration and production company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41q37oC at no extra charge.[CC] ATELIER LUXURY GROUP: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atelier Luxury Group, LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Atelier Luxury Group, LLC doing business as: Amiri, Case No. 1:23-cv-02827 (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Atelier Luxury Group, LLC doing business as Amiri -- https://amiri.com/ -- offers the latest men's and women's ready to wear, shoes, leather goods and accessories collections.[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 AUSTIN LIFESTYLE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Austin Lifestyle, LLC. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Austin Lifestyle, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03160 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Austin Lifestyle, LLC -- https://shop.deniseaustin.com/ -- offers fitness clothing & accessories.[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 BAKER HUGHES CO: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------ Baker Hughes Co: disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19, 2023, that a consolidated shareholder class suit is ongoing in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders of Baker Hughes Incorporated ("BHI") against the General Electric Company ("GE"), the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection with the combination of BHI and the oil and gas business ("GE O&G") of GE ("the Transactions"). On October 28, 2019, City of Providence filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on behalf of itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of BHI against GE, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI Officers alleging substantially the same claims in connection with the Transactions. The relief sought in these complaints include a request for a declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The lawsuits have been consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on December 17, 2019 against certain former BHI officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and against GE for aiding and abetting those breaches. The December 2019 complaint omitted the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, except for Mr. Craighead who also served as President and CEO of BHI. Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, who served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of BHI, remain named in the December 2019 complaint along with GE. The relief sought in the consolidated complaint includes a declaration that the former BHI officers breached their fiduciary duties and that GE aided and abetted those breaches, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On or around February 12, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. On or around October 27, 2020, the Chancery Court granted GE's motion to dismiss, and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, thereby dismissing all of the claims against GE and Ms. Ross, and all but one of the claims against Mr. Craighead. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of the remaining claim. Baker Hughes Company is an energy technology company with a diversified portfolio of technologies and services that span the energy and industrial value chain. BAKER HUGHES CO: Faces Reckstin Securities Class Suit in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Baker Hughes Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19, 2023, that the Company faces Reckstin securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On or around February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs in a putative securities class action styled The Reckstin Family Trust, et al., v. C3.ai, Inc., et al., No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG, filed an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Amended Complaint names the following as defendants: (i) C3.ai., Inc. ("C3 AI"), (ii) certain of C3 AI's current and/or former officers and directors, (iii) certain underwriters for the C3 AI initial public offering (the "IPO"), and (iv) Baker Hughes, and its President and CEO (who formerly served as a director on the board of C3 AI). The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the IPO and the subsequent period between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, during which BHH LLC held equity investments in C3 AI. The action seeks unspecified damages and the award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. At this time, the Company isn’t able to predict the outcome of these proceedings. Baker Hughes Company is an energy technology company with a diversified portfolio of technologies and services that span the energy and industrial value chain. BAYER CORP: Remand of Heidger Suit to Missouri State Court Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MELANIE HEIDGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:22CV894 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to Missouri State Court. On July 18, 2022, Heidgar filed the putative class action against Defendants Bayer Corp., Bayer Healthcare LLC, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, alleging breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). She asserts that the Defendants sold a variety of "Alka-Seltzer" cold and flu medicines, falsely claiming the medicine was non-drowsy, even though the "Alka-Seltzer" medicines contain dextromethorphan hydrobromide, a substance scientifically proven to cause drowsiness. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, restitution, attorney's fees, and "such further relief as the Court deems just, including injunctive relief" on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated Missouri citizens who purchased the products at issue over a five-year period in Missouri. On Aug. 25, 2022, the Defendants timely removed the matter to federal court, invoking the Court's jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Plaintiff filed the instant motion, arguing that the minimum amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold of $5 million necessary to establish jurisdiction under CAFA. First, the Plaintiff argues that her stipulation of damages in her Petition that disclaims any recovery exceeding $5 million on behalf of the Plaintiff and the "purported class" prevents removal pursuant to CAFA, incorrectly relying on Rolwing v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., 666 F.3d 1069, 1072 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that a damages stipulation could preclude removal under CAFA). but, as the Court has previously held, CAFA jurisdiction is not defeated by the Plaintiff's precertification stipulation of damages because she cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified. Next, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have not demonstrated, with specific facts or evidence, that at least $5 million is in controversy to meet its burden for removal purposes. However, Judge Autrey holds that the finds Defendants have carried its burden to show that CAFA's amount in controversy is met. He says the Plaintiff ignores her allegations in her Petition where she seeks to recover a full refund, seeking disgorgement for "all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the Defendants through their inequitable conduct. She fails to show that it is legally impossible for her and the putative class to recover more than $5 million. For these reasons, Judge Autrey holds that the Defendants have demonstrated by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the amount in controversy is met, and that the Plaintiff did not establish to a "legal certainty" that the claim is for less than the requisite amount. Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) and denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Opinion, Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4eadkhhz from Leagle.com. CELSIUS NETWORK: Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel Named in Goines Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SAMUEL TAYLOR GOINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELSIUS NETWORK, LLC, CELSIUS LENDING, LLC, CELSIUS KEYFI LLC, ALEXANDER MASHINSKY, SHLOMI "DANIEL" LEON, DAVID BARSE, and ALAN JEFFREY CARR, Defendants, Civ. No. 22-cv-04560 (KM) (ESK) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey appointed the Kaplan/Mazzotta Group as the Lead Plaintiff, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as the Lead Counsel, and the Radice Law Firm as the Liaison Counsel. Before the Court in this putative federal securities class action are the motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and appointment of counsel as the Lead Counsel by: (i) a group of individual plaintiffs consisting of Jonathan Holt and Matthew Coffey (collectively, the Holt Group); (ii) Plaintiff Chrishan de Almeida; (iii) a group of individual Plaintiffs consisting of Patrick Gayle, Ari Ovadia, Daniel Rooney, Samuel Trego, and Alfons Eggink (collectively, the Gayle Group); (iv) a group of individual Plaintiffs consisting of Noël Dernesch and Benjamin Robertson (together, Dernesch & Robertson); and (v) a group of individual Plaintiffs consisting of Zack Kaplan, Eli Kaplan, Benjamin Kaplan, Michael Kaplan, and Michael Mazzotta (collectively, the Kaplan/Mazzotta Group). The underlying federal securities action is brought on behalf of purchasers of various products offered by Celsius from Feb. 9, 2018, to the present. Goines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and state law. Celsius is a company that allegedly generates revenue through cryptocurrency trading, lending, and borrowing, the sale of its unregistered securities, as well as engaging in proprietary trading. Celsius, through its affiliates Celsius Lending LLC and Celsius KeyFi LLC, is alleged to have sold unregistered securities in the form of "Earn Rewards Accounts" and "CEL Tokens," and to have provided loans to investors who deposited CEL Tokens or other digital assets in exchange for a loan. According to the complaint, (i) the Earn Rewards Accounts are not protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and are not registered with any securities regulatory authority; (ii) CEL Tokens can be "minted out of thin air" and serve no purpose for investors; and (iii) the Celsius Loan is a promissory note offered and sold by Celsius to investors who deposited their digital assets as collateral with Celsius and Celsius collected monthly interest payments on the loans.. The Plaintiff alleges that Celsius made numerous misleading and false statements when promoting its products. Many of the alleged misrepresentations come from weekly YouTube podcasts hosted by Celsius using the "Ask Me Anything" or "AMA" format, whereby investors could ask questions directly to Alexander Mashinsky who is the CEO and founder of Celsius, as well as other Celsius representatives. The complaint alleges that, during the AMAs, Mashinsky and other Celsius representatives made various statements regarding Celsius's "borrower-friendly stance on liquidation." On June 13, 2022, Celsius paused all user withdrawals, swaps, and transfers. According to Celsius's official announcement, this was done due to extreme market conditions in order to stabilize liquidity and operations while we take steps to preserve and protect assets. About one year prior to the announcement, the CEL Token price was $7.73. Following the announcement, the CEL Token price was $0.28. The Plaintiff filed the complaint on July 13, 2022. On Sept. 13, 2022, five competing motions were filed, all seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel. The Gayle Group and Dernesch & Robertson soon filed notices of non-opposition to the competing motions. The remaining movants -- the Holt Group, de Almeida, and the Kaplan/Mazzotta Group -- filed opposition briefs on Oct. 3, 2022 and reply briefs thereafter. Notably, the Holt Group opposes the motion of de Almeida but does not oppose the motion of the Kaplan/Mazzotta Group. The Plaintiff alleges that the Celsius Products are securities under the Securities Act, that they are not registered with the SEC, and that no exemption to registration applies. He alleges that the class has suffered damages as a result of their purchase of the unregistered Celsius Products. Additionally, he alleges that the Defendants carried out a plan, scheme and course of conduct that Celsius intended to and did deceive him and the class members by making false or misleading statements. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' statements were material and that the defendants acted with scienter. Furthermore, he alleges that he and the class members relied on those statements and were thereby damaged. He also alleges that that the Defendants artificially inflated the price of the CEL Tokens and were unjustly enriched when they sold the Celsius Products at the inflated prices. Count I alleges a violation of Section 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act. Count II alleges a violation of Section 10b of the Securities Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Count III alleges a violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities Act. Count IV alleges a violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act. Count V alleges a violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act. Count VI alleges unjust enrichment under New Jersey law. Count VII seeks a declaratory judgment from the Court declaring that any current or open Celsius Loans are void and unenforceable. Judge McNulty finds that the Kaplan/Mazzotta Group is entitled to the presumption that they are the most adequate plaintiffs. They made a timely motion, have the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, and satisfy the typicality and adequacy prongs of Rule 23. None of de Almeida's arguments provide the requisite proof to rebut the presumption that the Kaplan/Mazzotta Group is the most adequate plaintiff. Therefore, the Kaplan/Mazzotta Group's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff is granted. The Kaplan/Mazzotta Group has selected Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as lead counsel and the Radice Law Firm as liaison counsel. Judge McNulty has reviewed the firms' submissions and finds that both firms meet the criteria of Rule 23(g). Both firms have experience litigating similar class actions and have demonstrated their knowledge of the applicable law and the resources they are willing to commit to representing the class. As a result, Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP is appointed as the Lead Counsel and the Radice Law Firm is appointed as the Liaison Counsel. Judge McNulty denies the motions of the Holt Group, de Almeida, the Gayle Group, and Dernesch & Robertson. An appropriate order accompanies his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/388fcmcj from Leagle.com. CENTIMARK CORP: Court Narrows Wage & Hour Claims in Lingle Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Anthony Lingle, Plaintiff v. Centimark Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01471-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants in part and denies in part Centimark's motion to dismiss. Lingle asserts several wage and hour claims against his former employer, Centimark, and he seeks to represent a class of similarly situated workers. According to his complaint, Lingle worked as a laborer and roofer for Centimark between 2019 and 2021. He was regularly scheduled to work more than forty hours a week, often as many as twelve to fourteen hours a day. But Centimark routinely withheld or miscalculated his overtime compensation, supervisors prevented him from taking mandatory breaks, and Centimark refused to reimburse expenses Lingle incurred on his personal phone bill from work calls and text messages. As a result of these failures, his wage statements were inaccurate, and some wages went unpaid. Lingle filed a complaint against Centimark in Sacramento County Superior Court a few months after he left the company. He asserted wage and hour claims under California Labor Code, including for unpaid overtime, wages below the legal minimum, wrongfully withheld meal and rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, and unfair competition, among others. After an amendment to the complaint, Centimark removed the case to this Court in August 2022 under the Class Action Fairness Act. The operative complaint includes nine claims: failure to pay overtime wages under California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194; failure to pay minimum wages under Labor Code section 1194; failure to offer meal breaks under Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; failure to offer rest breaks under Labor Code section 226.7; wage statement violations under Labor Code section 226(a); penalties for delayed wages after the end of employment under Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; failure to reimburse business expenses under Labor Code section 2802(a); unfair competition under Business & Professions Code sections 17200, 17203, and 17208; and a representative claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Lingle's experience was similar to that of other employees. He seeks to represent two classes of hourly employees: one asserting the first seven claims under the Labor Code, and one asserting the eighth claim for unfair competition. The PAGA claim is representative by nature, so Lingle does not seek to assert it on behalf of any class. He seeks damages, civil penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, fees, and costs, among other things. Centimark moves to dismiss the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It also moves to strike several portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f), including portions of the PAGA claim. Like the motion to dismiss, the motion to strike rests on legal arguments. For example, Centimark urges the court to strike the complaint's allegations about paid sick leave because there is no private right of action to enforce the Labor Code's sick leave provisions and it asks the court to strike Lingle's PAGA claim in part based on its interpretation of the underlying Labor Code protections. Because motions to strike under Rule 12(f) and motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) resemble one another as far as evidentiary standards and proof are concerned, district courts occasionally convert 12(f) motions to 12(b)(6) motions. The parties will suffer no prejudice if Centimark's motion to strike is converted to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Judge Mueller therefore converts Centimark's motion to strike to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court took these motions under submission after hearing oral arguments over videoconference on Feb. 17, 2023. After oral arguments, Lingle submitted a notice of the California Court of Appeal's intervening decision in Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 88 Cal. App. 5th 742 (2023), which interpreted relevant provisions of the Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. Centimark first moves to dismiss Lingle's third and fourth claims. He alleges Centimark did not offer him and others meal and rest breaks as required by the California Labor Code. He alleges Centimark expected him and his colleagues to be on call, remain on the job site, complete inspections and safety checks and receive deliveries all during their breaks. Judge Mueller holds Lingle offers more than generic claims about what was ordinarily done and the work environment, in contrast to the claims justifying dismissals in the cases Centimark cites. She denies the motion to dismiss claims three and four. Lingle next alleges Centimark gave its employees inaccurate wage statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226(a). Centimark argues a wage statement does not violate section 226(a) just because it accurately reports an underpayment. Judge Meuller holds that the California Supreme Court held that "extra pay for missed breaks" are "wages that must be reported on statutorily required wage statements" under section 226 of the Labor Code, citing Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal. 5th 93, 102 (2022). She says Naranjo is "convincing evidence" that the California Supreme Court would conclude Lingle's fifth claim does not seek an impermissible double recovery. Hence, she denies the motion to dismiss claim five. In Lingle's sixth claim, he alleges Centimark did not pay him and other similarly situated employees the wages they were due at the time their employment ended. He relies on California Labor Code sections 201, 202 and 203. Centimark argues this claim should be dismissed as dependent on Lingle's allegations about rest and meal breaks. Similarly, it faults the operative complaint for not specifying the exact date Lingle left the company, for not alleging specifically whether he was fired or resigned, and for not alleging when he received his final paycheck. Judge Mueller disagrees and says these details are not necessary. She explains that the complaint permits the Court to infer that if Lingle can prove his allegations, he and others could plausibly be entitled to penalties under sections 201, 202, or 203: (1) he alleges Centimark paid him and others less than the minimum wage, did not pay overtime, and did not offer meal and rest breaks; he alleges he ended his employment in October 2021; and he alleges Centimark did not pay wages he had earned, but which had gone unpaid, within 30 days of October 2021. Therefore, she denies the motion to dismiss claim six. In claim seven, Lingle alleges Centimark has wrongly withheld reimbursements for business expenses. In its reply, Centimark argues Lingle cannot rely on allegations about time he spent checking his schedule, but it cites a case discussing the Fair Labor Standards Act and whether time is compensable. Judge Mueller says this claim is not about compensable time, but rather unreimbursed expenses. She denies the motion to dismiss claim seven. In Lingle's eighth claim, he alleges Centimark did not pay "sick leave wages" under California Labor Code section 245 and the sections that follow, and he claims this failure was an "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice" under the California Unfair Competition Law. Centimark puts forward two arguments to show amendments would be futile. First, Centimark argues Lingle cannot rely on violations of California Labor Code section 246 to prove any "unlawful" practices under the Unfair Competition Law because that section does not include a private right of action. Second, Centimark argues Lingle cannot pursue an unfair competition claim because he has an adequate remedy at law. Neither is persuasive, Judge Mueller finds. At least one California federal district court has held that an employee cannot pursue equitable remedies related to unpaid sick leave without alleging why administrative enforcement is inadequate. The Court cannot exclude the possibility Lingle could properly allege, in a further amended complaint, why the Unfair Competition Law would offer a more prompt and certain remedy than an enforcement action under Labor Code section 246, or otherwise show a regulatory action against Centimark would face impediments. For these reasons, Centimark has not shown an amendment would be futile. Therefore, the motion to dismiss claim eight is granted with leave to amend. Centimark argues the PAGA claim should be dismissed to the same extent it rests on claims Lingle advances directly on his own behalf. Judge Mueller has denied Centimark's motion to dismiss the direct claims, with the exception of claim eight, which asserts claims under the Unfair Competition Law. But the complaint does not seek relief under the PAGA based on violations of the Unfair Competition Law. For these reasons, she does not dismiss the PAGA claim based on any failures in the direct allegations supporting Lingle's preceding claims. Lastly, Lingle does not allege Centimark provided no wage statements at all or failed to keep required records. He alleges Centimark gave employees incomplete and inaccurate statements. Judge Mueller dismisses his claim for penalties under section 226.3 with leave to amend, if possible within the confines of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In sum, Judge Mueller construes the motion to dismiss and to strike as a motion to dismiss only and grants that motion in part with leave to amend: claim eight is dismissed with leave to amend; claim nine is dismissed in part with leave to amend. She denies otherwise the motion. After careful consideration of the parties' comments in their joint status report on scheduling, Judge Mueller orders as follows: a. Any further amended complaint must be filed within 21 days. b. Initial disclosures must be exchanged within 45 days. c. Fact discovery related to class certification will be completed by Oct. 4, 2024. d. Initial expert disclosures related to class certification will be exchanged by Nov. 1, 2024. e. Rebuttal expert disclosures related to class certification will be exchanged by Dec. 6, 2024. f. All expert discovery related to class certification will be completed by Jan. 17, 2025. g. Any motions for class certification or to preclude class certification must be heard by April 25, 2025. h. The court will set further dates and deadlines following motion practice on class certification. Motions regarding discovery will be noticed before the Magistrate Judge, as provided by Local Rule 302(c). Judge Muller declines to modify the default discovery limits imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at this time. The parties may seek relief from the Magistrate Judge if necessary and address discovery limits to this court if necessary following motion practice on class certification. After consideration of the parties' comments related to settlement, the parties are directed to notify the Court whether they request a court settlement conference date or referral to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program prior to any hearing on class certification. The parties will file said notification or request for referral jointly, in writing. The case schedule will become final without further order of the Court unless objections are filed within 14 calendar days of the Order. The schedule, once final, will not be modified except by leave of Court upon showing of good cause. All provisions of the Court's standing scheduling order for Civil Cases filed concurrently therewith are incorporated therein. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nzb8m38d from Leagle.com. CHARTER FOODS: Class Action Filed Over January 2023 Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that Charter Foods faces a proposed class action over a January 2023 data breach that reportedly exposed the names, addresses, dates of birth and Social Security numbers of a yet-unknown number of current and former fast-food employees. The 31-page lawsuit says that defendants Charter Foods and Charter Foods North are franchisees of Yum! Brands, a parent company that owns several fast-food chains, including Taco Bell, Long John Silvers, KFC, Pizza Hut and A&W. In order to work for restaurants operated by Charter Foods, employees must provide their highly sensitive personal and financial information, which the companies then maintain on their computer systems, the filing explains. According to the case, an "undoubtedly nefarious" third party was able to infiltrate Charter Foods' networks on January 13 of this year due to the companies' "intentional, willful, reckless and/or grossly negligent" failure to implement adequate cybersecurity measures. Although the exact number of victims is unknown, the complaint claims that the incident has potentially affected hundreds of thousands of individuals. As the case tells it, Charter Foods and Charter Foods North were obligated to protect consumers' sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with their own internal policies, state and federal law and reasonable industry standards. The filing argues that as large, sophisticated organizations, the defendants should have known they were responsible for safeguarding consumers' data from the "known risk and foreseeable likelihood" of a data breach. Moreover, Charter Foods and Charter Foods North could have prevented the cyberattack by properly encrypting their servers and the sensitive information they maintained and by implementing processes that would immediately detect a breach of their systems, the suit contends. The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell employee from New Hampshire, claims to have received a letter from the defendants dated April 7, 2023 informing her that her personal and financial information had been compromised in the cyberattack. "Despite this, Plaintiff and the Class Members remain, even today, in the dark regarding what particular data was stolen, the particular malware used, and what steps are being taken, if any, to secure their [personally identifiable information] and financial information going forward," the case reads. "Plaintiff and Class Members are, thus, left to speculate as to where their [personally identifiable information] ended up, who has used it, and for what potentially nefarious purposes, and are left to further speculate as to the full impact of the Data Breach and how exactly Defendants intend to enhance their information security systems and monitoring capabilities to prevent further breaches." The suit alleges that victims' data has likely been put up for sale on the dark web, exposing them to a substantially increased risk of identity theft and fraudulent charges that will likely persist for years. The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the United States whose personally identifiable information and/or financial information was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the data breach experienced by Charter Foods and Charter Foods North on January 13, 2023.[GN] CLOVER HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $22-M --------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Sports reports that Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV) ("Clover," "Clover Health" or the "Company"), a physician enablement company committed to bringing access to great healthcare to everyone on Medicare, on April 24, 2023 announced that the Company has reached an agreement to resolve the securities class action captioned Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-CV-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) (the "securities class action"), which was filed in the wake of its de-SPAC transaction. The proposed settlement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing by any of the defendants, including the Company, and is subject to definitive documentation and final court approval. On April 21, 2023, the parties to the securities class action entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the class action. Subject to negotiation of definitive documentation and final court approval, the class will receive $22 million dollars (less an award of fees and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel, as determined by the court), the defendants (including the Company) will receive customary releases, and the litigation will be concluded. The Company will use insurance proceeds totaling $19.5 million that have been advanced or have been committed to be advanced by the Company's insurers to fund the settlement. The Company expects to pay $2.5 million of out-of-pocket costs to fund the settlement. The Company previously filed a lawsuit in Delaware state court against certain of its insurers for full payment of its liabilities related to this securities litigation. The Company intends to continue to pursue that litigation against the insurance carrier defendants to seek to recover additional funds, and intends to oppose any efforts by the carrier defendants to recoup any insurance proceeds that they have advanced or committed to advance to date. This settlement is subject to definitive documentation and final court approval. The defendants have denied all wrongdoing and have entered into this settlement to avoid the burden, expense, and distraction of ongoing litigation. Further information on the settlement will be available upon the filing of the formal notice of settlement to class members, and the above descriptions of the settlement is qualified entirely by the definitive settlement papers and corresponding notice. Andrew Toy, Clover Health's Chief Executive Officer, stated: "The Board and the Company are happy to have reached this settlement. While the Company believes that the securities class action was entirely without merit, we can now avoid the continued, substantial legal defense costs and distractions associated with the lawsuit. This resolution allows us to focus on what is important; building a strong, sustainable business which will benefit our members and shareholders alike." Clover notes that the settlement of the securities class action does not resolve or release the claims asserted in several, parallel derivative lawsuits filed in Delaware, New York, and Tennessee courts. Forward-Looking Statements Please note that this press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements include statements regarding future events and Clover Health’s future results of operations, financial position, business strategy and future plans. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such statements. In some cases, you can identify forward looking statements because they contain words such as "may," "will," "should," "expects," "plans," "anticipates," "going to," "can," "could," "should," "would," "intends," "target," "projects," "contemplates," "believes," "estimates," "predicts," "potential," "outlook," "forecast," "guidance," "objective," "plan," "seek," "grow," "target," "if," "continue," or the negative of these words or other similar terms or expressions that concern Clover Health's expectations, strategy, priorities, plans or intentions. Forward-looking statements in this release include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the litigation and proposed settlement, including definitive documentation, final court approval and the availability of insurance proceeds, as well as expectations related to Clover Health's liquidity, future performance, future operations and future results. These statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to differ materially from results expressed or implied in this press release. Additional information concerning these and other risk factors is contained in Clover Health's latest Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March 1, 2023, including the Risk Factors section therein, and in its other filings with the SEC. The forward-looking statements included in this press release are made as of the date hereof. Except as required by law, Clover Health undertakes no obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements after the date of this press release or to conform these statements to actual results or revised expectations. About Clover Health: Clover Health (Nasdaq: CLOV) is a physician enablement company committed to bringing access to great healthcare to everyone on Medicare. This includes a health equity-based focus on seniors who have historically lacked access to affordable, high-quality healthcare. Our strategy is powered by our software platform, Clover Assistant, which is designed to aggregate patient data from across the healthcare ecosystem to support clinical decision-making and improve health outcomes. We operate two distinct lines of business: Insurance and Non-Insurance. Through our Insurance line of business, we provide PPO and HMO Medicare Advantage plans in several states, with a differentiated focus on our flagship wide-network, high-choice PPO plans. Our Non-Insurance line of business similarly aims to reduce cost-of-care while enhancing the quality of care for patients enrolled in Original Medicare. Press Contact: Andrew Still-Baxter press@cloverhealth.com Investor Relations Contact: Ryan Schmidt investors@cloverhealth.com [GN] COCA-COLA CO: Fritch Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE FRITCH, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2023-01305257-CU-OE-CXC (Filed Feb. 1, 2023) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 30, 2023. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00576 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts thirteen causes of action: (1) unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; (7) Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses; (8) Failure to Provide Wages When Due; (9) Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages; (10) Discrimination and Retaliation; (11) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (12) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; and (13) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational corporation founded in 1892, best known as the producer of Coca-Cola. The drink industry company also manufactures, sells, and markets other non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, and alcoholic beverages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sophia B. Collins, Esq. Anthony Ly, Esq. Yuri Choy, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1255 Treat Blvd., Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 E-mail: scollins@littler.com aly@littler.com ychoy@littler.com CREMATION SERVICES: Ill. App. Affirms Summary Judgment for Peerless ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CREMATION SERVICES, INC., DONALD GREENE FUNERAL, DONALD A. GREENE, DONALD A. GREENE II, and PEQUEENA DIXON as named class representative, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 1-21-1634 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division, affirms the circuit court's grant of Peerless' cross-motion for summary judgment and its denial of Cremation Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. The appeal stems from a dispute over whether Peerless had a duty to defend Cremation Services, Donald Greene Funeral, Donald Greene (Greene), and Donald Green II (Greene II) in an underlying putative class action lawsuit. On May 25, 2015, Dixon and her siblings, Deborah McClain, Deveda Perkins, and Diana Owens, filed a class action lawsuit against Cremation Services, Biological Resource Center of Illinois (BRC Illinois), Biological Resource Center (BRC), Anatomical Service, Inc. (ASI), International Biological, Inc. (IBI), and several other entities. In their Fourth Amended Complaint, the complaint at issue in this appeal, they added Greene and Greene II as named defendants. The complaint generally alleged fraud in the inducement to body donation, the mishandling and desecration of their deceased father's body, inter alia making false statements and promises concerning how, when and where donated bodies will be used and remains returned. In January 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided Donald Greene Funeral, Cremation Services, and BRC Illinois to obtain evidence that the companies illegally sold body parts for profit to IBI and BRC of Arizona. The complaint alleged that the FBI raided BRC Illinois and Cremation Services, looking for evidence about allegations that the companies sold body parts illegally. Cremation Services, Donald Greene Funeral, BRC Illinois, Greene, and Greene II have been named in a total of 11 lawsuits alleging that they deliberately made misrepresentations to clients and mistreated cadavers in their possession. At the time of the FBI raid, Cremation Services and Donald Greene Funeral were insured by Peerless. The liability insurance coverage was effective Dec. 31, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2015. The policies included a Commercial Protector Coverage Form (Businessowners Coverage Form). They also contained an Exclusion for Expected or Intended Injuries and a Funeral Directors' Professional Liability Endorsement (PLE). In March 2015, the Cremation Defendants tendered their defense of the Dixon Class Action to Peerless. In October 2015, Peerless agreed to participate in the defense of the Cremation Defendants in the underlying lawsuit under a reservation of rights, but also filed suit for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify the Cremation Defendants in the underlying suit. Peerless also requested an order requiring the Cremation Defendants to reimburse Peerless for past defense costs upon a showing of proof. On Dec. 13, 2017, the Cremation Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Peerless on the issue of whether Peerless had a duty to defend them in the underlying suits pursuant to the Peerless policies and the PLE. They claimed that the causes of action alleged in the underlying suit fell within, or potentially within, the Peerless policies, giving rise to its duty to defend. Peerless filed a cross-motion for summary judgment claiming there could be no coverage under the language of the policies because the underlying suit did not allege an "occurrence, bodily injury, or property loss," as defined by the Peerless policies. It maintained there was no coverage under the PLE because the intentional conduct did not constitute rendering professional services as a funeral director, and because the underlying suit concerned allegations of criminal activity. Peerless also asserted that the Expected and Intended Exclusion precluded coverage because the Cremation Defendants intended or could have reasonably anticipated the harm that their actions would cause the plaintiffs in the underlying suit. And finally, Peerless argued that the Cremation Defendants failed to satisfy the notice provision of the Peerless policies, a condition precedent for coverage. The circuit court granted Peerless' motion for summary judgment, finding that it had no duty to defend the Cremation Defendants in the underlying lawsuit for several reasons. It found that the Cremation Defendants failed to establish how the underlying suit alleged an occurrence, bodily injury, or property damage under the Peerless policies, and that the Cremation Defendants failed to provide adequate notice as required under the policies. The court also denied the Cremation Defendants' request for attorney fees. Peerless then filed a motion for entry of judgment and reimbursement, indicating that it was entitled to be reimbursed by the Cremation Defendants for all the defense fees and expenses it previously incurred in defending them in the underlying suit. Cremation Defendants responded that Greene and Greene II were not named in the underlying suits and therefore were not personally responsible for reimbursement. The circuit court granted Peerless' motion for entry of judgment and reimbursement. The parties do not reference, and we do not see, a transcript of a hearing on this motion in the record. The Cremation Defendants and Dixon from the underlying lawsuit now appeal. On appeal, they allege that the circuit court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of Peerless where it found that Peerless had no duty to defend the Cremation Defendants in the underlying lawsuit. The Appellate Court affirms the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. Among other things, if finds that (i) the allegations are all for intentional, fraudulent acts, and therefore cannot be "occurrences" as defined by Peerless' insurance policies; (ii) the circumstances do not amount to an "occurrence" as defined under the Peerless policies because the conduct was the result of natural and ordinary consequence of the intentional decision to engage in deceptive or misleading business practice; (iii) the conduct at issue in the underlying class action does not constitute rendering of or failure to render professional services as a crematorium; (iv) the risks of tortious behavior and unfair business practices are not inherent in rendering professional services as a funeral home or crematorium, and therefore not covered by the PLE; and (v) the failure to provide proper citations is a violation of Rule 341(h)(7), the consequence of which is the forfeiture of the argument. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4767bzjc from Leagle.com. D&A SERVICES: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Deutsch FDCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MINDY DEUTSCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Appellant v. D&A SERVICES LLC, Case No. 22-1042 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's order granting D&A's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Deutsch filed a lawsuit against D&A alleging that D&A violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by sending her a misleading debt collection letter. Deutsch incurred a debt to a non-party credit card company. After she failed to pay it for some time, the credit card company assigned the debt to D&A for collection. D&A sent Deutsch two debt collection letters: the first on June 8, 2020 and the second on July 13, 2020. Deutsch claims that the language in the June 8, 2020 letter was misleading in violation of the FDCPA. Deutsch brought a putative class action alleging that the Disputed Language was misleading, in violation of the FDCPA. She alleged that the Suspend Collection Language was misleading because it gave her the incorrect impression that she could suspend collection by disputing all or part of the debt orally or outside the 30-day window, which conflicts with the rights provided by Section 1692g(b). A debt collector need not inform a debtor of the protections provided by Section 1692g(b). But Deutsch's complaint alleges that, even though D&A was not required to inform her of her Section 1692g(b) rights, the inclusion of the inaccurate information about her Section 1692g(b) rights had the effect of giving her "contrary and inconsistent" information about her rights under Section 1692g(a). The District Court granted D&A's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. It concluded that the Disputed Language, read holistically, is not misleading because it does not suggest that a recipient could suspend collection by orally disputing the debt or disputing the debt outside the statutory 30-day window. Deutsch timely appealed. On appeal, Deutsch claims that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear her case because she does not have Article III standing to sue over the letter given the Supreme Court's recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021). Alternatively, she contends that if the District Court had jurisdiction, it erred by concluding that the Disputed Language was not misleading and granting D&A's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Third Circuit opines that Deutsch has Article III standing to pursue her claims against D&A because she has adequately alleged that she has suffered a concrete informational injury. Moreover, Deutsch's alleged informational injury stems from a purportedly deceptive debt collection practice and aligns with Congress's goal of eliminating abusive practices by debt collectors. She has therefore alleged an informational injury and has standing to pursue her claims. The Third Circuit further opines that the Disputed Language does not violate the FDCPA, and it agree with the District Court's decision to dismiss Deutsch's claims. It reads the Suspend Collection Language in connection with the G-Notice that accompanies it. Even for the least sophisticated debtor, the G-Notice eliminates any ambiguity: it explains that a debtor who wishes to avail herself of her statutory right to validation of a debt must request validation in writing and within 30 days of receiving a collection notice. For the foregoing reasons, the Third Circuit affirms the judgment of the District Court. Because it has concluded that Deutsch has standing, it also denies her motion to vacate the District Court's opinion and judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/35uxbraj from Leagle.com. DAKTRONICS INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in Ney York Court -------------------------------------------------------- Daktronics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2023, that on December 21, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit captioned "Settles, et al. v. Daktronics, Inc., et al.," Case No. 22-cv-10793 was filed against the company and two of its officers in the U.S. District court for the Southern District of New York. The Securities Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging, among other things, the company made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts which allegedly resulted in harm to a putative class of purchasers of the company's securities from March 10, 2022, through December 6, 2022. Daktronics, Inc. Is engaged principally in the design, marketing, and manufacture of electronic display systems and related products based in South Dakota. DIAMONDBACK E&P: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COOK CHILDREN’S HEALTH FOUNDATION a/k/a W.I. COOK FOUNDATION, INC., on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. DIAMONDBACK E&P LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00359-D (W.D. Okla.), Hon. Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti entered an order that the following deadlines are extended and reset as follows: Event New Deadline Class Certification Motion filed August 28, 2023 with supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: Class Certification Response filed with October 25, 2023 supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: Class Certification Reply filed with November 29, 2023 any rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosures, if any: Class Certification Discovery Cutoff December 27, 2023 Diamondback E&P operates as an oil and natural gas company. The Company provides acquisition, development, exploration, and exploitation of onshore oil and natural gas reserves. A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KOS7dm at no extra charge.[CC] DNC SERVICES: $3.5M Class Settlement in Katz Suit Has Prelim. Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BETHANY KATZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-5800 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania preliminarily certifies the class for settlement purposes and preliminarily approves the parties' Settlement Agreement. The case involves the alleged underpayment of overtime wages by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party during the 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections for employees who worked as Organizers during these elections. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party allegedly avoided paying Organizers overtime wages by classifying them as exempt from the overtime requirements. Named Plaintiff Katz worked for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party as a Field Organizer during the 2016 presidential election. Ms. Katz alleges that she and the other Organizers worked 60 to 80 hours per workweek during the 2016 presidential campaign. The parties do not dispute that prior to July 1, 2020, Organizers received a salary which ranged between $3,000 to $3,500 per month and were paid no overtime premiums for overtime hours worked. Ms. Katz initiated the action to recover unpaid overtime wages. She filed a complaint alleging individual, class, and collective action claims against the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. She alleges that the Pennsylvania Democratic Party violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., by failing to pay for all overtime hours worked. She also alleges that the Pennsylvania Democratic Party violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), 43 P.S. Sections 331.101 et seq. Ms. Katz seeks to represent "all persons who performed worked or work as organizers or in similar positions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who were treated as exempt from overtime by Defendant Pennsylvania Democratic Party and who worked in this capacity at any point in the three (3) years preceding the date the instant action was initiated." The Pennsylvania Democratic Party filed a motion to dismiss, and Ms. Katz filed a motion seeking to conditionally certify a collective action under the FLSA. The Court granted in part and denied in the part the Pennsylvania Democratic Party's motion to dismiss, allowing Ms. Katz's FLSA and PMWA claims to proceed. Ms. Katz's still-pending motion for conditional certification was subsequently granted. After granting conditional certification, the Court ordered that the notice to opt-in to the collective class be sent to Pennsylvania state party Organizers who worked for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party between Nov. 9, 2013, to April 26, 2021. The Pennsylvania Democratic Party compiled a list of approximately 817 organizers, and to date, 114 opt-in consent notices have been filed. In April 2022, the parties attended a mediation via Zoom with former Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Benson, from the Western District of Pennsylvania. The mediation did not result in a settlement, but the parties continued settlement discussions with the mediator following the mediation. A settlement-in-principle was reached in September 2022. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Class Settlement Fund is a total of $3.5 milllion, which the Defendant will pay in according to the terms of this Settlement Agreement and will be payable in seven installments of approximately $500,000 per year over the six year period following the Effective Date. Swartz Swidler, LLC will seek an award of Attorneys' Fees of $1,166,666, which equals one-thir of the Class Settlement Fund. The parties agree that Ms. Katz is entitled to a service award of $10,000 in recognition of her service to the Settlement Class Members. The parties ask that the Court appoint the Angeion Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. Angeion will be paid for all Settlement Administration Costs out of the Class Settlement Fund, however, Angeion has agreed to cap its fees for administration of the settlement at $150,000. The Settlement Agreement sets out a reasonable path forward regarding notice to the members of the proposed class. The parties name Community Legal Services - Philadelphia as the intended cy pres recipient of any remaining undistributed settlement funds. Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, in exchange for payments from the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, the Plaintiffs agree to release the Pennsylvania Democratic Party from any and all wage and hour claims arising out of, or resulting from, the conduct asserted in the lawsuit. Judge Pratter notes that a proposed class must be ascertainable, meaning the class members can be clearly identified. She also notes that Rule 23(b)(3) requires that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. She further notes that for a settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, it is determined by considering several factors, including whether (1) "the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class"; (2) "the proposal was negotiated at arm's length"; (3) "the relief provided for the class is adequate"; and (4) "the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other." Judge Pratter finds that (i) the class is ascertainable because the criteria for deciding who is in the class are simple and objective; (ii) the Settlement Agreement provides that there are approximately 831 Settlement Class Members who have been identified; (iii) there is a common legal question shared among the class members; (iv) Ms. Katz's claims are typical of those of the class; (v) Ms. Katz and her counsel, Swartz Swidler, LLC, will adequately represent the interests of the proposed class; (vi) because the Organizers' duties and compensation were the same, the analysis regarding whether Organizers are exempt would be the same for each individual Organizer; and (vii) resolving the matter via a class action is far better than having each of the 831 Organizers bring his or her own suit. For these reasons, Judge Pratter concludes that Ms. Katz has established that the proposed class warrants preliminary class certification for the purposes of settlement having met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The parties also ask the Court to preliminarily approve their settlement agreement in accordance with Rule 23(e). The terms of the settlement are set out in a settlement agreement, executed by the parties and their counsel, and later amended. Judge Pratter concludes that the proposed settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. She approves the proposed settlement agreement under the FLSA. First, she says the parties have a bona fide dispute, which centers around the applicability of the FLSA to the Organizers and the classification of the Organizers as exempt employees. Second, the settlement is fair and reasonable. The settlement negotiations were conducted at arm's length following extensive discovery and motions practice. Moreover, Swartz Swidler, LLC is experienced in prosecuting, defending, and settling similar wage and hour cases such that it was able to evaluate the fairness of the present settlement. Finally, the inclusion of the Community Legal Services - Philadelphia as the intended cy pres recipient does not change her conclusion that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pratter preliminarily certifies the class for settlement purposes and preliminarily approves the parties' Settlement Agreement. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7v3f67 from Leagle.com. DNC SERVICES: Final Settlement Hearing in Katz Suit Set for Sept. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BETHANY KATZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-5800 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Order Granting Preliminary Approval to Proposed Class and Collective Action Settlement and Related Relief. The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on Sept. 1, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. The Plaintiffs brought claims in the Court on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons and have entered into a Settlement Agreement with Defendant Pennsylvania Democratic Party dated Jan. 23, 2023, as amended on March 6, 2023. The preliminary approval hearing was held on Jan. 24, 2023. Having reviewed the Settlement Agreement and its accompanying and supporting papers, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, Judge Pratter grants preliminary approval of the settlement as set out in the Settlement Agreement and Release. She finds that the proposed settlement consideration is within the range of possible approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate, such that notice to the Class is appropriate. Judge Pratter certifies the following class of individuals who seek recovery under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): all individuals who worked for Defendant Pennsylvania Democratic Party as a Field Organizer at any point from Nov. 9, 2013 - Dec. 31, 2021. She appoints Swartz Swidler, LLC, as the Class Counsel and Angeion Group as the Settlement Administrator. The Class Notice is approved, and Judge Pratter orders it be distributed per the terms of the Settlement Agreement to all Class Members. Any Class Member wishing to opt out or object to the settlement may do so within 60 days of the Notice being distributed and must do so per the terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Notice. Katz is ordered to file her motion for final approval of the settlement, which will respond to any objections received, by no later than July 13, 2023. Katz will file her motion for final approval of attorneys' fees, costs, and service payments, by no later than Aug. 11, 2023. The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on Sept. 1, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4d9jzej from Leagle.com. DOMO INC: Volonte Appeals Dismissal of Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Domo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2023, that in November 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned "Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al," Case No. 19-04-01778, was filed by a stockholder of the company in the Fourth Judicial District court for the County of Utah in the State of Utah against the company, certain of the company's current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company's June 2018 initial public offering alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company's initial public offering and seeking unspecified damages. In August 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Volonte complaint. On April 13, 2021, the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. On April 25, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend or alter judgment or for reconsideration. In June 2, 2021, the court denied the plaintiff's motion. On June 14, 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On October 14, 2021, the plaintiff/appellant filed his principal brief in the Utah court of Appeals (Appellate Case No. 20210399-CA). The appeal was fully briefed as of January 20, 2022, and the court heard oral argument from the parties on May 12, 2022. On March 9, 2023, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. Domo, Inc. Is a software company based in Utah. DON ROBERTO: Agrees to Settle Flores Data Breach Suit for $4-M --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Don Roberto Jewelers agreed to a $4 million settlement to resolve claims that a 2021 data breach compromised sensitive consumer information. The settlement benefits individuals who had an address on file with Don Roberto Jewelers at the time of the data breach and whose personal information was compromised in the breach. Between Feb. 16 and March 3, 2021, a data breach allegedly gained access to sensitive consumer and employee information held by Don Roberto Jewelers. According to a class action lawsuit, the jeweler's negligence allowed hackers to gain access to Social Security numbers and other identifiers. Don Roberto Jewelers is a jewelry company with locations in California and other surrounding states. Don Roberto Jewelers hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $4 million class action settlement to resolve the data breach allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, consumers can submit a claim for reimbursement if they experienced damages as a result of the data breach. Class members can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement, including payments for up to seven hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. In addition to the reimbursement payments, class members who lived in California at the time of the data breach can receive a cash payment of $75. If these claims do not exceed the $1.25 million allocated for California payments, then each claimant could receive up to $750. All class members are eligible to receive three years of free identity theft protection through Aura's Financial Shield. Class members are also eligible for three years of identity restoration services from Aura. If any funds remain in the settlement after payments are distributed, the money will be split equally between Consumer Watchdog and Veterans Legal Institute. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 12, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July 20, 2023. In order to receive benefits from the data breach settlement, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 26, 2023. Who's Eligible Individuals who had an address on file with Don Roberto Jewelers at the time of the data breach and whose personal information was compromised in the breach. Potential Award $5,750 Proof of Purchase Documentation of data breach-related expenses, such as receipts or bills. NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/26/2023 Case Name Flores, et al. v. Don Roberto Jewelers Inc., Case No. 30-2021-01212035-CU-NP-CXC, in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Orange Final Hearing 07/20/2023 Settlement Website JewelrySettlement.com Claims Administrator Don Roberto Jewelers Data Breach Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Info@JewelrySettlement.com 888-431-1006 Class Counsel John A Yanchunis MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP Daniel S Robinson ROBINSON CALCAGNIE INC Defense Counsel Tyler Newby FENWICK & WEST LLP [GN] DOORDASH INC: Suit Alleges Consumers Scammed by Predatory Pricing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi at 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. 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.[GN] DR. MYLISSA'S MEDICAL: Orsino-Esiyok Sues Over Unsolicited Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Irene Orsino-Esiyok, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DR. MYLISSA'S MEDICAL BOUTIQUE LLC, Case No. CACE-23-012665 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 17, 2023), is brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party." The Defendant is a med spa that sells various cosmetic procedures and products such as botox, skin care products, and anti-aging products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Office: (786) 289-9471 Direct: (305) 975-3320 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com EAGLE NATIONAL: Approval of Class Notice Plan Sought in Wilson -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sam Wilson, Jr., et al., v. Eagle National Bank, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01344-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an approval of notice plan and proposed form of notice. The Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Sam Wilson and John and Jackie Unthank, by and through undersigned counsel, on behalf of themselves and the entire class of persons similarly situated, by and through undersigned Class Counsel, hereby seek approval for Plaintiffs' plan of notice to the Eagle Class, (and Antitrust and RESPA subclasses), and the Proposed Form of Notice. The Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs' proposed Notice Plan or Plaintiffs' Proposed Class Notice. On July 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and corresponding Memorandum. The Defendant filed its Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on October 31, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On March 13, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the Class, ECF No. 135. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, this Court certified the following Eagle Class and Subclasses: The Eagle Class is comprised of all individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a loan originated or brokered by Eagle National Bank or Eagle Nationwide Mortgage Company for which All Star Title, Inc. provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011. Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2011, was an employe, officer, member and/or agent of Defendants Eagle National Bank, Eagle Nationwide Mortgage Company, Eagle National Bancorp Inc., ESSA Bank & Trust, Inc., ESSA Bancorp Inc., or All Star Title, Inc.; and any judicial officer who handles this case, and the immediate family members of such judicial officer(s). The Antitrust Subclass is comprised of all members of the Eagle Class The RESPA Subclass is comprised of all individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. section 2602) originated or brokered by Eagle National Bank or Eagle Nationwide Mortgage Company for which All Star Title, Inc. provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011. Eagle National offers banking solutions for individuals, families and businesses in the Philadelphia region. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41meTQR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Veronica B. Nannis, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com vnannis@jgllaw.com - and - Michael Paul Smith, Esq. Melissa L. English, Esq. SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 821-0070 Facsimile: (410) 821-0071 E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com menglish@sgs-law.com EL CAMINO FORT: Kelly Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Campbell Kelly, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EL CAMINO FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-60723-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to pay Bartenders state and federal minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA"). The Defendant committed federal and state minimum wage violations because it compensated Bartenders at the reduced wage for tipped employees notwithstanding that Bartenders were required to spend more than 20% of their workweek performing non-tipped duties and side work. Defendant has also violated state and federal law by claiming a tip credit during shifts when Bartenders were required to spend more than 30 continuous minutes on side work and non-tipped duties. As a result, the Plaintiff and all similarly situated Bartenders have been denied federal and state minimum wages during various workweeks within the relevant time period, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a restaurant Bartender. The Defendant owned, operated, and controlled the El Camino Restaurant located in Lauderdale, 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 EXICURE INC: Faces Colwell Shareholder Suit in Illinois Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Exicure, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2023, that on December 13, 2021, Mark Colwell filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the company, David A. Giljohann and Brian C. Bock in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned "Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-0663. On February 4, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended putative securities class action complaint. The amended complaint alleges that Dr. Giljohann and Mr. Bock made materially false and/or misleading statements related to the company's clinical programs purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired company securities between January 7, 2021, and December 10, 2021. The amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and others who acquired the company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. In March 20, 2023, the court issued an Order appointing James Mathew as Lead Plaintiff, and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as Lead Counsel for the purported class. The parties are required to submit, within two weeks of that Order, a schedule to the court governing the filing of a further amended complaint and the timing of defendants' answer or response. Exicure, Inc. is an early-stage biotechnology company based in Illinois. FANEUIL INC: Fails to Compensate All Hours Worked, McCune Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA MCCUNE and ADDESHA BRADY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FANEUIL INC., a Virginia Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00041-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va., March 30, 2023) arises from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for common law claims of breach of contract or (in the alternative) unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Faneuil provides business process outsourcing services for companies across the United States. Its broad range of services include customer care, technical support, back-office operations, staffing, and support for employee onboarding and case management. According to its website, Defendant provides "seamless and scalable business process outsourcing solutions." The Defendant claims it can "rapidly recruit, train, deploy and manage passionate and compassionate personnel supported by intelligent technology to take on any task." In providing these services, Defendant employs hourly customer services representatives (CSRs) in both brick-and-mortar call centers and remotely. In the past three years, The Defendant has employed Plaintiffs as CSRs. The Defendant employs CSRs on an hourly basis, but routinely fails to compensate them for all hours worked, including all overtime hours worked, says the suit. In workweeks that the CSRs worked forty or more hours, Defendant's failure to compensate the CSRs for all hours worked resulted in a violation of state and federal overtime laws. Additionally, Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to include non-discretionary bonuses (incentive pay) in the calculation of the CSRs' regular rate of pay and corresponding overtime rates, the suit further alleges.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher M. FitzPatrick, Esq. Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN DC, PLLC 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 772-0566 Facsimile: (202) 772-0616 E-mail: CFitzpatrick@forthepeople.com AFrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4388 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C. Oscar Rodriguez, Esq. 126 Main St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903 Telephone: (734) 662-4426 E-mail: orod@hooperhathaway.com FIELD WARES LLC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Field Wares, LLC. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Field Wares, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03157 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Field Company -- https://fieldcompany.com/ -- manufactures and sells smoother, lighter cast iron skillets reminiscent of the greatest vintage pans. Made in America.[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 FIRST TRANSIT: Pendleton Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN PENDLETON, for himself and all others similarly situated v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01985 (Filed April 21, 2020) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Ohio (Dayton) on March 30, 2023. The Southern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00089-MJN-PBS to the proceedings. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael J. Newman. The Plaintiff brings this action to redress Defendant's common policies and practices that deny overtime wages to Paratransit Drivers for work they perform during "O Time," which is scheduled time spent waiting for passenger pick-ups during which Drivers are taken off-the-clock despite having to comply with a long list of requirements that severely limit their freedom while serving Defendant's business interests. The Defendant's O-Time practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by denying overtime premium wages to its employees for scheduled work they perform with Defendant's knowledge and from which Defendant receives a substantial benefit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Paige L. Smith, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: psmith@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com dcohen@stephanzouras.com E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com - and - Kelly Anne Burgy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 S. Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-1047 E-mail: kaburgy@nicholllaw.com - and - Scott M. Pollins, Esq. POLLINS LAW FIRM 303 W Lancaster Ave., Suite 1C Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 896-9909 E-mail: scott@pollinslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kimberly D. Saginario, Esq. Littler Mendelson, P.C. 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 402-3000 E-mail: ksaginario@littler.com FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Djedi Order Class Suit Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DJEDI ORDER and HERU SPENCER, Plaintiffs v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-194-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismisses the lawsuit without prejudice to its refiling if the Plaintiffs find an attorney, who shows that venue is proper in this district. Spencer, representing himself and his religious organization Djedi Order, seek leave to bring a class action on behalf of the Order's members challenging the constitutionality of "all Anti LGBTQUIA laws Abortion Bans and Anti-Abortion laws" in 20 states. The Plaintiffs also name as defendants 26 political, professional, and religious organizations. They seek damages and have filed thousands of pages of exhibits in support of injunctive relief in the form of enjoining the enforcement of "all unconstitutional laws and bans." Because the Plaintiffs proceed in forma pauperis, Judge Peterson must screen the complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. In doing so, he must accept the allegations as true and construe the complaint generously, holding it to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. With that standard in mind, he concludes that this lawsuit must be dismissed for two reasons. First, it is unclear why the lawsuit was filed in this district. The Plaintiffs appear to be Montana residents who allege that some members of Djedi Order live in Wisconsin. But the Plaintiffs are not suing the state of Wisconsin and do not allege that any of the organizations they name as defendants are based in this district or specify any events that occurred here. Hence, the Court does not appear to be a proper venue for this lawsuit. Second, and regardless of venue, Judge Peterson says the Plaintiffs cannot proceed with the class action without an attorney. The Plaintiffs did not file a separate motion for class certification and assert without explanation in the complaint that they have satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). Spencer is pro se and does not claim to be an attorney, so he cannot represent the Djedi Order and the proposed class of its members. Even if Spencer was an attorney, he could not act both as class representative and as attorney for the class because that arrangement would eliminate the checks and balances imposed by the ability of the class representatives to monitor the performance of the attorney on behalf of the class members. For these reasons, Judge Peterson dismisses the lawsuit without prejudice to its refiling if the Plaintiffs find an attorney who shows that venue is proper in this district. He denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr49bmzz from Leagle.com. FREIDA ROTHMAN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freida Rothman, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Freida Rothman, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03110 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Freida Rothman -- https://www.freidarothman.com/ -- is a Brooklyn-based jewelry and accessories designer.[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 FURNISHARE INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furnishare Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Furnishare Inc. doing business as: Kaiyo, Case No. 1:23-cv-03158 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Furnishare Inc. doing business as Kaiyo -- https://kaiyo.com/ -- is an online marketplace for pre-owned furniture that's made to last.[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 GBNY PRODUCTIONS: Vickers Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GBNY Productions, Inc. The case is styled as Lachae Vickers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GBNY Productions, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02837 (C.D. Ill., April 17, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. GBNY Productions, Inc. -- https://gbny.com/ -- is sportswear and designer fashion brands for everyone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (404) 797-9696 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com GEICO INDEMNITY: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Title & Transfer Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Thompson of Repair Driven News reports that a U.S. District Court has granted class certification to a New Jersey woman who filed a complaint against GEICO for allegedly failing to pay the title and transfer fees for her total loss vehicle. Diane McCoy filed a class action complaint against the company in 2020, detailing how she was involved in a total loss vehicle collision in January 2018 while insured by GEICO. According to the lawsuit, GEICO, through a third-party vehicle valuation provider, determined the vehicle had a base value of $3,777 and an adjusted value of $3,838. The insurer added $254.27 for sales tax and subtracted $500 for the deductible for a total payout of $3,592.27, the complaint said. However, it did not cover the cost of title transfer and tag fee transfers, the legal filing said. "GEICO Indemnity's failure to pay title transfer and tag transfer fees at the time of the loss breached the policy because these fees are necessary 'replacement costs' and are not attributable to depreciation nor betterment and constitute elements of the ACV of the insured vehicle," the complaint said. "McCoy paid all premiums owed and otherwise satisfied all conditions precedent such that her insurance policy was in effect and operational at the time of the accident. "Plaintiff and all members of the Class . . . were owed title transfer fees in the amount of $85.00 and tag transfer fees in the amount of $4.50." The plaintiff's claim cited a federal civil procedure rule that says, in part, that a company can be sued for not paying the costs of title transfer fees or registration transfer fees in the event a policyholder has a total loss claim. GEICO retorted that the case lacked standing as McCoy "suffered no concrete injury because any additional amounts included in her total loss settlement would have been paid to her lienholder." McCoy responded to that claim by saying she suffered a financial detriment as a result of being underpaid for her loss, according to a separate legal filing. In a judgment allowing McCoy to proceed with her case, the presiding judge wrote that "by Defendant's own admission, its general practice was not to pay Transfer Fees on such claims prior to January 1, 2020." "Even if all of the claims that occurred after Defendant changed its business practice in January 2020 were afforded Transfer Fees, the class members that did not receive these fees still comfortably exceed the 40 minimum required by the Third Circuit," District Judge Zahid Quraishi wrote. "Accordingly, numerosity is satisfied." GEICO did not respond to a Repairer Driven News request for comment by deadline. Last October, GEICO agreed to pay over $19 million to nearly 227,000 policyholders to settle allegations that it did not pay them the full amount owed in total loss claims. The federal class action lawsuit was filed in 2019 and combined last year with a second suit filed in 2020. The combined complaint alleges that GEICO breached private auto insurance policies by improperly calculating or failing to include sales tax for the purpose of buying a replacement vehicle in total loss claims. Some plaintiffs also alleged GEICO didn't pay local and state regulatory fees. At least one plaintiff claims his sales tax wasn't paid because his vehicle was leased rather than owned, which the suit says goes against policy terms. The settlement class is split into two types of plaintiffs — those owed sales tax and those owed regulatory fees. Class members include GEICO private passenger auto physical damage insurance policyholders whose claims were adjusted under Section III (comprehensive or collision coverage) of the carrier’s policy during the class period for which GEICO paid total loss claims and the policyholders didn't keep the salvaged vehicles. The class period is from June 27, 2015 if insured by GEICO General, Oct. 23, 2016 if insured by GEICO Indemnity, or June 30, 2017 if insured by GEICO Casualty or Government Employees Insurance Company through Aug. 27, 2020. The majority of the class members include those who are allegedly owed regulatory fees. The preliminary settlement agreement was approved in July. A hearing on the final settlement terms is scheduled for Dec. 15. In the meantime, claim forms to be included as a class member are due by Nov. 11. Policyholders who want to be excluded from the class must do so by Oct. 27, 2022. Claim forms and information on the class exclusion process are available here. The preliminary agreement estimates the average sales tax class claim will be $2,051.98, which is based on an average vehicle value of $23,318.00 and a 7.25% average sales tax rate plus local sales tax. Each of the more than 218,000 regulatory fees class members are expected to receive $6.88 — representing one-half of an average monthly payment in regulatory fees, according to court documents. Twenty-five to 30% of sales tax and 20-25% of regulatory fees class members are expected to claim their settlements. [GN] GLADSTONE AUTO: Court Grants Bids in Limine in Ferguson Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CAROL FERGUSON and LYNDA FREEMAN, on behalf of themselves and, in addition, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARIA SMITH, an individual; GLADSTONE AUTO, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; and CARROS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00372-SB (D. Or.), Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion in limine and grants the Defendants' motion in limine. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed motions in limine in anticipation of the May 1, 2023, trial. Judge Beckerman first examines the Plaintiffs' motion in limine. First, the Plaintiffs moved to exclude any evidence or argument relating to their job performance or terminations. The Defendants do not oppose the motion, except with respect to the date of the Plaintiffs' terminations which is relevant to their knowledge of the Defendants' payday policies and practices and to the amount of liquidated damages. As a result of the parties' conferral on the motion, the parties stipulated that Ferguson's last paycheck was dated July 27, 2017, and Freeman's last paycheck was dated Aug. 28, 2017, and that the Defendants no longer employed them after those dates, which resolved the Defendants' objection. Accordingly, Judge Beckerman grants the Plaintiffs' motion in limine and orders that the parties may not introduce any evidence or argument relating to the Plaintiffs' job performance or their terminations, except that the parties may refer to their stipulation. Second, the Plaintiffs moved to exclude any evidence or argument challenging the Court's holding earlier in the case that Defendants collectively employed Plaintiffs and the collective members. The Defendants do not oppose the motion. Accordingly, Judge Beckerman grants the Plaintiffs' motion in limine and orders that the Defendants may not introduce any evidence or argument challenging the Court's holding that the Defendants collectively employed the Plaintiffs and the collective members. Third, the Plaintiffs moved to exclude any evidence or argument regarding the defenses of failure to state a claim or insufficiency of class allegations. The Defendants do not oppose the motion. Accordingly, Judge Beckerman grants the Plaintiffs' motion in limine and orders that the Defendants may not introduce any evidence or argument regarding the defenses of failure to state a claim or insufficiency of class allegations. Her order does not preclude the Defendants from arguing to the jury that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden of proof with respect to their and the collective members' claims. Fourth, the Plaintiffs moved to exclude any evidence or argument regarding an offset against liquidated damage awards for certain collective members. The Defendants oppose the motion, on the ground that some collective members were paid overtime despite being exempt from overtime requirements, and therefore the Court should offset any liquidated damage award by the amounts Defendants overpaid those collective members. Judge Beckerman agrees that the Court may be appropriate to offset certain collective members' liquidated damage awards if the Defendants overpaid the collective member in the same pay period. Accordingly, she denies the Plaintiffs' motion in limine regarding offsets and allows the Defendants to present evidence to the jury regarding collective members' overtime exemptions and argument to the Court regarding appropriate offset amounts. Fifth, the Plaintiffs moved to exclude any evidence or argument concerning a non-compensable time defense. The Defendants do not oppose the motion. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion in limine is granted and the Defendants are ordered that they may not introduce any evidence or argument regarding a non-compensable time defense. Sixth, the Plaintiffs moved to exclude any evidence or argument regarding the application of a statute of limitations defense other than that the statute of limitations began to run on March 1, 2015 (for willful violations) or March 1, 2016 (for non-willful violations), because they reached an agreement with the Defendants to toll the applicable statute of limitations for them and the collective members. The Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that no valid tolling agreement exists. Judge Beckerman finds that the Plaintiffs reached a valid and enforceable tolling agreement with the Defendants via an email exchange between their respective counsel on Sept. 12, 2018. The tolling agreement provided that if the Plaintiffs agree to a global mediation and agree to postpone all depositions and a motion for conditional certification, the Defendants will agree to toll the FLSA claims from March 1, 2018 (the date the complaint was filed). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion in limine is granted. The parties may not introduce any evidence or argument regarding application of a statute of limitations defense other than that the statute of limitations began to run on March 1, 2015 (for willful violations) or March 1, 2016 (for non-willful violations). Seventh, the Plaintiffs moved to exclude any evidence or argument concerning their motives in filing this lawsuit or concerning a possible attorney's fee award. The Defendants do not oppose the motion, so long as the Court's order does not preclude them from arguing for a liquidated damages offset. Accordingly, Judge Beckerman grants the Plaintiffs' motion in limine. The Defendants may not introduce any evidence or argument regarding the Plaintiffs' motives in filing the lawsuit or concerning a possible attorney's fee award. Nothing in the Court's order precludes the Defendants from arguing for a liquidated damages offset. Finally, the Plaintiffs moved to exclude any evidence or argument concerning a collection at work to assist Freeman with the costs of a surgery. The Defendants do not oppose the motion. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion in limine is granted. The parties may not introduce any evidence or argument regarding the collection for Freeman's surgery. Judge Beckerman then turns to the Defendants' motion in limine. The Defendants move to preclude the Plaintiffs from referencing the related state court class action. The Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion in limine is granted. No party may introduce any evidence or argument regarding the related state court action. The Defendants move to preclude the Plaintiffs from referencing employees who chose not to opt into the collective. The Plaintiffs initially opposed the motion on the ground that evidence about employees who did not opt into the collective may be relevant to the claims of those who did, e.g., the fact that all employees were paid on the same day is relevant to the regularity of payday. The parties resolved the objection by removing the pay stubs of employees who did not opt in from the trial exhibits, and by stipulating that employees were paid on the same day. Accordingly, Judge Beckerman grants the Defendants' motion in limine and orders that no party may introduce any evidence or argument regarding employees who did not opt in to the collective. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ycpyppa from Leagle.com. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Suit Over Drug Zetia for $87.5M ----------------------------------------------------------------- BW BusinessWorld reports that on April 18, 2023 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals stated in an exchange filing that it has agreed to enter into a settlement with the three plaintiff groups who had filed a class action lawsuit against the company in the US court for a total amount of USD 87.5 million related to the generic drug Zetia. The agreed amount is payable over two financial years. Three plaintiff groups collectively representing all of the claims against the Company and Merck are referred to as the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, the Retailer Plaintiffs, and the End-Payor Plaintiffs. Glenmark said that it will pay an amount of USD 48 million to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, USD 25.5 million to the Retailer Plaintiffs, and USD 14 million to the End-Payor Plaintiffs, in accordance with the separate agreements entered into with each of them. Glenmark stated that there are multiple antitrust and consumer protection lawsuits that the company is involved in, including a class action, consolidated in the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. against the Company and its subsidiary Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, in connection with generic Zetia, a drug for the treatment of cholesterol. The lawsuits allege that in 2010, Glenmark entered an anticompetitive agreement to settle patent infringement litigation involving a patent related to ezetimibe (the active ingredient in Zetia) with Schering Corporation and MSP Singapore Company LLC. In the antitrust and consumer protection litigation, the Company is named as a defendant along with Schering Corporation, MSP Singapore Company LLC, Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., now known as Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, and Schering-Plough Corp. The Company and Merck have disputed these claims and defended these matters vigorously. The trial for this case began on April 19, 2023, in the U.S. courts. Glenmark said that the settlements will make clear that the company denies each and every one of the allegations against it and the settlements is not on the basis of the company having conceded or admitted any liability or illegality. Glenmark's stock was trading 0.24 per cent higher on April 18, 2023 at Rs 518 per scrip on BSE as of 12:00 PM IST. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Inaccessible 5G SA Network ------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Google faces a class action after rolling out a software update that allegedly removed 5G SA network access from Pixel 4a, Pixel 5 and Pixel 5a smartphones. In the case - captioned Nichols v. Google LLC. Google faces a class action after rolling out a software update that allegedly removed 5G SA network access from Pixel 4a, Pixel 5 and Pixel 5a smartphones. Google faces a proposed class action after rolling out a software update last month that allegedly removed 5G standalone (SA) network access from Pixel 4a, Pixel 5 and Pixel 5a smartphones. The 12-page complaint was filed by a Colorado resident who contends that he and other consumers paid more for their Pixels than they would have had they known the devices would eventually be incapable of accessing the 5G network. As the suit tells it, certain Pixel owners began noticing after the March 2023 software update that their devices were no longer able to access the 5G network. "The network signal regularly displayed an exclamation point '!'instead of bars representing service." According to AndroidPolice.com, the issue was highlighted in a Reddit post in which a user reported that older Pixel devices running on Qualcomm Snapdragon chipsets had lost their ability to access 5G. The publication wrote that the loss of 5G SA connectivity—which uses a dedicated radio access network to connect smartphones to the 5G "backhaul"—is "particularly irritating" for consumers who went through the process of upgrading their SIMs to support improved network access. Per the case, the March 2023 software update that struck 5G access from the older Pixel devices has been criticized by some as a timed move by Google, coming after a recent Pixel trade-in sale, in the spirit of "planned obsolescence," which is banned in some countries. "Some suggest that Google may have deliberately waited until after its efforts of encouraging users to upgrade to newer Pixel models, despite those users' phones working without issues," the case shares, noting that it is complicated for a typical Pixel user to re-implement 5G access for their device, a process involving "downgrading firmware, unlocking the SIM card and manipulating all sorts of internal software code." One of the perks of the 5G SA network is "voice over new radio" (VoNR), which should deliver better quality calls, AndroidPolice writes. Disabling 5G access means the phones cannot use VoNR for calls, the publication states. According to the lawsuit, Google's use of Qualcomm Product Support Tools "would have allowed these devices to continue to use 5G networks" despite their apparent incompatibility with VoNR technology. The filing states that Google's Pixel series routinely ranks among the best smartphones on the market, "largely due to timely software updates" as Google does not have to go through a separate manufacturer in order to deliver the newer software to users. Per the case, the Pixel devices affected by the March 2023 software update cost anywhere from $500 to $1,000 when first released, when they were touted as able to access 5G networks. "As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Products are sold at a premium price, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than they would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions," the lawsuit contests. The case looks to cover all persons in Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, South Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas and Arizona who bought a Pixel 4a, Pixel 5 or Pixel 5a advertised as capable of accessing 5G broadband networks during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] GREYHOUND LINES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned JUAN BAZABAL and KEINARD SIMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC. and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:22-cv-01520-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered a scheduling order setting discovery deadlines and class certification motion deadline: 1. Any motion to join other parties, amend June 2, 2023 the pleadings, or file additional pleadings shall be filed by: 2. The Court will hold a Status Conference June 12, 2023 On: 3. The Court will hold a second Status Sept. 29, 2023 Conference on: 4. Fact and class discovery are not Nov. 17, 2023 bifurcated, but class discovery must be completed by: 5. The Plaintiff(s) must file a motion Dec. 1, 2023 for class certification by: Greyhound Lines provides intercity bus transportation services. The Company offers package express, charter, and food services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Abpguw at no extra charge.[CC] H&K ENGINEERING: Parties Must Submit Joint Status Report by May 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE LEDET, INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. H&K ENGINEERING, LLC, ORBITAL ENGINEERING INC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01324-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered a second amended case management order as follows: 1. The Defendants' response to the May 10, 2023 amended motion, and any responses to Orbital's Motion for Summary Judgment, shall be filed by: 2. The parties shall submit a joint May 3, 2023. status report upon completion of mediation, but no later than: 3. Hearing and oral argument on the May 23, 2023 amended motion for conditional class certification, currently set for: 4. The parties shall meet and confer July 7, 2023 regarding the contents of proposed opt-in notice and consent forms: 5. In the event this action is not Oct. 2, 2023 conditionally certified as a collective action, merits discovery shall be completed by: H&K Engineering provides professional engineering services. The Company offers mechanical, piping, electrical, control systems, civil and structural, marine, and model integration services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MVAFpY at no extra charge.[CC] HARRINGTON RACEWAY: Holye Files Suit in D. Delaware --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harrington Raceway, Inc. The case is styled as Jaysin Holye, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Harrington Raceway, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00420-UNA (D. Del., April 17, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Harrington Casino & Raceway -- https://casino.harringtonraceway.com/ -- is a go-to casino in Delaware for slots, poker, sports betting & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Charles Herr, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL C. HERR LLC 1225 North King Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 483-7060 Fax: (302) 483-7065 Email: DHerr@dherrlaw.com HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Franklin Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ISABELLE FRANKLIN and SIERA HABOC, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL STAFFING, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00048700-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on April 12, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00662-LAB-DEB to the proceeding. The complaint alleges, on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, 11 total causes of action, 10 of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and one of which is for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc. is a company that operates in the staffing and recruiting industry.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Brian S. Fong, Esq. Amanda E. Beckwith, Esq. Victoria B. Ayeni, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com bfong@sheppardmullin.com abeckwith@sheppardmullin.com vayeni@sheppardmullin.com HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: $1-M Deal in Contractors' Suit Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Hanson at courthousenews.com reports that Hearst won a federal judge's approval to pay $1 million to settle a class action claiming the news giant broke California laws and exploited contractors. The class action first filed by independent contractors Yolanda and Pablo Sanchez and Monica Tejada in 2020 originally demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs said Hearst violated multiple state labor laws including failing to compensate contractors with minimum wage and overtime pay, reimbursement for business expenses or providing meal and rest breaks. Hearst is the largest distributor of print news subscription products in Northern California, and the contractors say home newspaper delivery to subscribers is a major piece of the company's enterprise. Plaintiffs say despite being independent contractors, Hearst demanded additional services outside of their contracts and specified delivery hours. Plaintiffs said that for work they had to drive, maintain, insure and fuel their own vehicles, and use their own cellphones, without compensation. They also worked shifts without uninterrupted lawful meal and rest breaks at the appropriate times. Hearst has faced similar class action claims from workers multiple times in the last decade, including from more than 3,000 former unpaid interns whose unfair labor practices suit was thrown out in 2016. After years spent in litigation, this past December U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria granted preliminary approval of the $950,000 settlement on behalf of the plaintiffs and 56 class members. In court, Chhabria granted final approval of the settlement and the motion for attorney's fees. The agreement includes service payments of $15,000 each for Pablo Sanchez and Violet Alvarez for their time and personal risks, attorneys' fees of up to 35% of the settlement or $332,500 and litigation costs up to $40,000. Class members will receive an average pre-tax award of over $9,280, and any undeliverable awards will go to the East Bay Community Law Center in Berkeley. Chhabria said he agreed that the usual 25% benchmark for attorneys' fees was not enough in this case, saying 35% was appropriate given the "significant recovery achieved for class members." "I think it's important in a case like this to think about incentives," Chhabria said. However, the judge withheld 10% in administration fees, given what he said were a number of mistakes made throughout litigation of the case. "There have been times when I will get the final accounting and I say no, because there's been an issue with the administration of the case," he said, which attorneys agreed with. "We're pleased with the court's thoughtful words of appreciation for this strong settlement and the relief it provides for the hardworking class members," Jahan Sagafi, attorney for the plaintiffs, said in an email. Attorneys for Hearst did not respond to a request for comment before press time.[GN] HENKEL CORP: Laundry Detergent Label Overstates Number, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that a laundry detergent consumer is suing the brand All, alleging the company falsely advertises how many loads of washing the detergent can do per container. Plaintiff Valerie Waller filed the class action lawsuit against Henkel Corporation on April 17 in a St. Louis County Circuit Court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, the laundry detergent manufacturer falsely claims that enough detergent is provided for 58 loads when, in reality, consumers doing a full load of washing would only be able to do less than half the amount of loads. All advertises the "58 LOADS" claim prominently on the front of the product, Waller says. However, a mark on the packaging corresponds to small print on the back of the bottles that disclaims that the full number of loads is dependent on the smallest of four load sizes, the lawsuit states. "Putting this all together - to the extent a consumer can follow the textual 'clues' riddled across the product's container - the amount of detergent in the container is only sufficient for '58 LOADS' if a 'load' is a so-called 'regular' load, which is less than half a full load," Waller states. "Consequently, for the vast majority of consumers doing full loads of laundry at high efficiency … the most loads the product provides detergent for is approximately half as many, or roughly just approximately 28 loads, or less" 'Reasonable consumers' wouldn't read the fine print, lawsuit states Based on the "58 LOADS" claim on the front of the detergent, a "reasonable consumer" would think they were buying enough detergent for 58 normal loads, Waller states. She adds that the average consumer spends less than 20 seconds making any in-store buying decision, and the decision relies almost completely on front labeling when comparing products for price and value. Waller is looking to represent a class of Missouri citizens who bought the detergent in the past five years. She is suing for breach of warranty, breach of implied contract under Missouri law and Maine law, unjust enrichment under Missouri law, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Waller seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In April, Procter & Gamble (P&G) was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging it falsely advertises certain containers of its Gain laundry detergent as containing enough detergent to do 32 loads of laundry, a new class action lawsuit alleges. What do you think of the claims against All in this class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments! Waller is represented by Daniel Harvath of Harvath Law Group LLC. The All detergent class action lawsuit is Valerie Waller et al., v. Henkel Corp., Case No. 4:23-cv-00486, in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County, State of Missouri.[GN] HY-VEE INC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in White Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as White v. HY-VEE, INC. et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-04246-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. Hy-Vee is an employee-owned chain of supermarkets in the Midwestern and Southern United States, with more than 280 locations in Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and intends to soon open locations in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40pDMcO at no extra charge.[CC] ILLUMINATE EDUCATION: Class Suit Over Data Breach Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Anna Merod of K – 12 Dive reports that a class action lawsuit filed against ed tech company Illuminate Education has been dismissed by a state judge who said the plaintiffs had failed to establish standing or prove any instance of actual identity theft. Judge James Selna for the Central District Court of California ruled on April 19, 2023A in a case seeking damages from Illuminate over a 2021 data breach that leaked academic, behavior and demographic information of 3 million students. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages to compensate for being "placed at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of harm from identity theft and fraud." The class action represents current and former students attending school districts throughout California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Oklahoma and potentially other states where their private information was stored in Illuminate's PupilPath system. The plaintiffs were given 21 days to amend their complaint and address issues identified by Selna. The biggest year to date for data breaches in K-12 schools occurred in 2021, with a significant share attributable to the Illuminate Education incident that affected at least 605 institutions, according to an April report by Comparitech. In January 2022, Illuminate became aware that an unauthorized third party had accessed its database containing personal and protected health information of students. Illuminate did not notify schools about the incident until late March 2022, according to the lawsuit. The data breach impacted the nation's two largest school systems -- New York City Public Schools and Los Angeles Unified School District -- in addition to others. Months following the data breach's announcement, Renaissance acquired Illuminate. Chris Bauleke, Renaissance's chief executive officer, said in an email to customers announcing the acquisition that there was no evidence of misused data. Illuminate also offered identity monitoring for any notified individual following the cyberattack. Nonetheless, Illuminate has faced backlash for the mass data breach. In August, the nonprofit Future of Privacy Forum said it removed Illuminate from its Student Privacy Pledge list, a voluntary data privacy protection pledge, THE Journal reported. The move marked the first time a company had been removed from the pledge. The forum also forwarded its decision to federal and state officials for potential legal action against Illuminate, saying that a company publicly stating it followed the pledge despite its noncompliance may be misleading under federal and state law. Meanwhile, the New York City Department of Education stopped using Illuminate products in June 2022 after the breach exposed personal data of about 820,000 current and former students. Illuminate had signed a data privacy and security agreement with the city's schools promising to encrypt student data, but when the cyberattack happened, the school system said the vendor had not done so. Paul Bischoff, a consumer privacy expert, previously told K-12 Dive that holding vendors like Illuminate accountable for these kinds of breaches is tricky. "Companies need to take steps to protect their data, but you also don't want to blame victims, because ultimately Illuminate is a victim of a cyberattack," Bischoff said. "You don't want to penalize companies too much for data breaches, because then they won't report them at all to get out of the consequences." [GN] INTERCURE LTD: Class Action Approval Over Cannabis Ads' Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- Market Screener reports that InterCure Ltd. (NASDAQ: INCR) (TSX: INCR.U) (TASE: INCR) (dba Canndoc) ("InterCure" or the "Company"), the leading cannabis company outside of North America, announces that on April 23, 2023, it was informed that an application for approval of a class action in Israel was filed against twenty-six defendants, among them the leading cannabis groups in Israel, including the Company and three of its subsidiaries. The subject of the application is the alleged claim that the defendants are in violation of the advertising prohibitions included in the Israeli regulations overseeing medical cannabis in Israel. The Company is currently considering the application and its likelihood of acceptance. About InterCure (dba Canndoc) InterCure (dba Canndoc) (NASDAQ: INCR) (TSX: INCR.U) (TASE: INCR) is the leading, profitable, and fastest growing cannabis company outside of North America. Canndoc, a wholly owned subsidiary of InterCure, is Israel's largest licensed cannabis producer and one of the first to offer Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) certified and pharmaceutical-grade medical cannabis products. InterCure leverages its market leading distribution network, best in class international partnerships and a high-margin vertically integrated "seed-to-sale" model to lead the fastest growing cannabis global market outside of North America. For more information, visit: http://www.intercure.co. Contact: InterCure Ltd. Amos Cohen, Chief Financial Officer amos@intercure.co [GN] KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Sets Aside EUR575-M Ahead of Suit Over CPAP ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Park of Fierce Biotech reports that in a first-quarter earnings report released on April 24, 2023, Philips clocked a net loss of 665 million euros ($733.7 million), thanks in large part to ongoing restructuring efforts and the still-rippling effects of the June 2021 recall of 5.5 million of the company's respiratory devices. The period's net loss is more than quadruple that of the same quarter last year when Philips reported a loss of 151 million euros. A major chunk of the company's expenses came from the 575 million euros that it set aside as it braces for a resolution in at least one tranche of the class-action lawsuits it's currently facing in the U.S. over the 2021 recall. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed suit against the company, spanning hundreds of personal injury claims, requests for medical monitoring for people who used the recalled devices and reimbursement for the economic losses that some users say they experienced due to the recall. The litigation provision set aside during the first quarter would cover only the last of these. "Resolving the Philips Respironics recall for patients remains our highest priority," Philips CEO Roy Jakobs said in the earnings report, noting that the provision "is an important step in addressing the litigation related to the recall." Along with the litigation provision, Philips took another 54-million-euro recall-related hit to its bottom line as it continues its repair-and-replace program for all affected CPAP and BiPAP machines, ventilators and other breathing support devices. To date, according to the report, more than 95% of all needed repair kits and replacement devices have been produced; most of the remaining 5% of devices are ventilators, "for which Philips Respironics is fully focused on working towards a solution," the company said. Taking another bite out of Philips' earnings for the quarter were expenses tied to company-wide restructuring efforts. Those efforts began last fall, just a few days into Jakobs' tenure at the helm, when he announced alongside lower-than-expected third-quarter earnings that about 4,000 workers would be laid off. The affected employees would come from all across the company, he said at the time, with Philips' biggest employee bases -- in the U.S., the Netherlands, India and China, in descending order -- taking the proportionally biggest hits. Just a few months later, alongside a full-year earnings report released in January, Jakobs said another 6,000 jobs had been added to the chopping block. Together, those 10,000 cuts add up to about 13% of the company's workforce, which had counted 78,000 workers as of the end of 2021. The layoffs will be staggered through 2025, but have already begun: In April 24, 2023's earnings report, Jakobs said that about 5,400 cuts have already been made, adding, "I realize that we are asking a lot from our employees to work through the necessary changes and deeply appreciate their tremendous efforts and ongoing commitment to deliver on our company purpose." In total, the workforce reduction cost Philips 150 million euros in the first quarter, according to the report. Philips re-recalls 1,200 CPAP, BiPAP machines repaired in far-reaching ventilator probe Outside of those losses, Philips saw its sales jump about 6% year over year, reaching nearly 4.2 billion euros ($4.6 billion) for the quarter. That increase came even as the company's order intake stayed flat compared to the same period last year -- as a double-digit increase in orders in its diagnosis and treatment division was balanced out by a decline in the connected care business, where growth in sales of hospital patient monitoring devices are still being offset by the effects of the respiratory recall. With that sales growth and a sharp uptick in Philips' operating cash flow -- which grew from an outflow of 227 million euros last year to an inflow of 202 million euros for the first quarter of this year -- Jakobs deemed the quarter "a solid start to the year, " even as he noted that "uncertainties remain" for the months ahead. Investors seemed to agree: As the earnings report went live on April 24, 2023 morning, Philips' stock price shot upwards to $21.70, growing 14% over its closing price of $19.03 April 21, 2023 afternoon and marking its first time above the $20 mark since August. [GN] LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Murphy Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN MURPHY, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. LIFEPOINT HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00361-UNA (D. Del., March 30, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, LifePoint did not pay for all the hours they worked. Instead, LifePoint automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from these employees' work time for so-called meal breaks. Murphy and the Putative Class Members were thus not paid for that time. But LifePoint fails to provide Murphy and the Putative Class Members with bona fide meal breaks, says the suit. Instead, LifePoint requires Murphy and the Putative Class Members to remain on-duty throughout their shifts and continuously subjects them to interruptions, including during their unpaid "meal breaks." LifePoint's auto-deduction policy violates the FLSA by depriving Murphy and the Putative Class Members of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked, the suit alleges. Murphy worked for LifePoint as an Access Specialist Registered Nurse in Florence, Alabama from approximately March 2020 until August 2021. Throughout her employment, LifePoint classified Murphy as non-exempt and paid her on an hourly basis. But LifePoint subjected Murphy to its common practice of automatically deducting 30 minutes a day from her recorded work time for so-called "meal breaks," the Plaintiff asserts. Murphy brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt LifePoint employees who were subject to LifePoint's automatic meal break deduction policy. Murphy worked for LifePoint as an Access Specialist Registered Nurse. Like the Putative Class Members, Murphy regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com - and - Michael J. Farnan, Esq. Sue L. Robinson, Esq. Brain E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.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: mjoesphson@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 MARATHON DIGITAL: Faces Moreno Suit Over 8.31% Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME R. MORENO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC., MERRICK OKAMOTO, FREDERICK G. THIEL, SIMEON SALZMAN, and HUGH J. GALLAGHER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00470 (D. Nev., March 30, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Marathon securities between May 10, 2021 and February 28, 2023, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company overstated the efficacy of its disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, says the suit. On February 28, 2023, Marathon issued a press release "announcing that it has cancelled its webcast and conference call for the fourth quarter and fiscal year 2022, initially scheduled for today, February 28, 2023, at 4:30 p.m. Eastern time, and will postpone the publication of its corresponding financial results." That same day, Marathon disclosed receipt of a letter from the SEC relating to accounting errors in the Company's previously issued financial statements. Also on February 28, 2023, market analyst Seeking Alpha commented on Marathon's announcement, stating that "the company said its method for calculating the impairment of digital assets, chiefly bitcoin, on a daily basis using a standard cutoff time wasn't in compliance with a requirement that calls for the intraday low price to be used," and, as such, "Marathon now estimates that both its revenue and cost of revenue for the year ended Dec. 31, 2021, were understated. On this news, Marathon's stock price fell $0.59 per share, or 8.31%, to close at $6.51 per share on March 1, 2023. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff acquired Marathon securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. Marathon operates as a digital asset technology company that mines digital assets with a focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the generation of digital assets in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq. MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD. 7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104 Las Vegas, NE 89117 Telephone: (702) 330-4505 Facsimile: (702) 825-0141 E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Bid Granted; Miller Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CAROLYN MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Civil No. 1:22-cv-01782-JRR (D. Md.), Judge Julie R. Rubin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue. Maxim, is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Howard County, Maryland. It is a healthcare staffing agency that works to create career opportunities for medical professionals, including nurses and travel nurses. The Plaintiffs are travel nurses and worked for Maxim at different healthcare facilities. Maxim offered each Plaintiff an employment agreement with a fixed-term assignment at an agreed-upon pay rate. The Plaintiffs accepted the employment agreement by executing Maxim's form travel assignment. After entering their respective employment agreements with Maxim, the Plaintiffs provided information to Maxim through an electronic onboarding system called Onboarding365. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs received an electronic onboarding packet which included a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Employment-Related Disputes ("MAA"). The Plaintiffs allege that after they accepted their positions, Maxim made a "take-it-or-leave-it" demand, which required them to accept less pay or be terminated. They continued working in their positions at the lower rate because there was no reasonable alternative for employment after incurring travel expenses and obtaining short-term housing. They filed the instant lawsuit seeking to recover "for the pay losses Plaintiffs and other travelers experienced as a result of Maxim's predatory business practices." On July 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit. On July 29, 2022, they filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint sets forth 11 counts: (I) Breach of Contract; (II) Promissory Estoppel; (III) Unjust Enrichment; (IV) Fraudulent Inducement; (V) Fraudulent Concealment; (VI) Negligent Misrepresentation; (VII) Violation of State Wage Payment Laws; (VIII) Violation of California Labor Code Section 970; (IX) Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200; (X) Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA; and (XI) Violation of State Overtime Statutes. Maxim moves to compel arbitration and dismiss for improper venue pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. Sections 1 et seq., and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). It argues that the Court should compel arbitration because the parties entered into valid binding arbitration agreements and the Plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreements. Maxim argues that the Plaintiffs and Maxim are parties to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they signed the MAA but argue that Maxim fraudulently induced them into entering the agreement. Judge Rubin opines that the Plaintiffs' fraudulent inducement claim targets the employment contract as a whole; their claim is not that Maxim fraudulently induced them into agreeing to arbitrate. While the Plaintiffs' Declarations aver that they would not have accepted an assignment through Maxim or completed the arbitration agreement or its delegation provision, their fraud allegations do not single out the MAA as their target, but rather Maxim's employment contract of which the MAA is a part. The Defendant argues, and the Plaintiffs do not dispute, that the Plaintiffs' claims are covered by their agreements to arbitrate. The Plaintiffs' claims are all employment-related disputes, including claims that directly or indirectly arise out of or relate to their recruitment, application, employment, or separation from employment with the Defendant. Judge Rubin finds the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate and the Plaintiffs' claims fall within its scope. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims must be resolved through arbitration. In the event the Court declines to outright deny the Motion, the Plaintiffs request limited arbitration-related discovery, and if necessary, a jury trial on the issue of whether the "agreement" to arbitrate is enforceable as required by the FAA. Judge Rubin finds that the Plaintiffs unequivocally deny that their consent to the MAA's was validly obtained; however, they do not dispute that the MAA exists. The Plaintiffs do not generate genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, they are not entitled to a jury trial under Section 4 of the FAA. Lastly, the Defendant argues that the Court should compel arbitration and dismiss the action. As Judge Rubin discussed, each claim in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint falls with the scope of the MAA. Accordingly, she dismisses the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. For these reasons, Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss for Improper Venue is granted. A separate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9fzee8 from Leagle.com. MBR FARMS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Labor Trafficking --------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against a Georgia woman and a blueberry grower on behalf of immigrant farm workers who allege the defendants subjected them to forced work for little pay in abusive conditions. It is the latest development in Operation Blooming Onion, one of the largest human trafficking cases ever prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2021, two dozen defendants were indicted on federal conspiracy charges after a transnational, multiyear investigation into a human smuggling and labor trafficking operation that illegally imported Mexican and Central American workers into "brutal conditions" on South Georgia farms. In early April, attorneys on behalf of agricultural laborers brought to Georgia on seasonal visas filed a class action lawsuit in early April against Maria Leticia Patricio, the central figure of 24 individuals indicted in November 2021 as part of Operation Blooming Onion, Savannah Morning News reports. The plaintiffs -- 100 Mexican, Guatemalan and Hunduran farm workers in Georgia recruited under the federal H2-A visa program -- allege they were trafficked. According to the lawsuit, blueberry grower MBR Farms was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, The Business & Human Rights Resource Center reports. The lawsuit reportedly describes workers subject to conditions not included in their contracts, confiscated identification and visa documents, threats and violence, recruitment fee charges of hundreds of dollars. The workers were also allegedly housed in cramped and squalid housing and did not have enough food to eat. The CEO of MBR Farms told Savannah Morning News they were unaware of the lawsuit and were not responsible for the labor recruitment. In 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would help close to a million migrant farm workers and their families gain legal status, while updating the H-2A agricultural visa program. In that case, 30 Republicans, many representing agriculture-heavy districts, joined nearly every Democrat to vote in favor of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. [GN] MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Accused of Misleading Investors in Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard Koplowitz at al.com reports that a Birmingham company that is among the largest owners of hospital properties in the country is being accused of misleading investors by concealing that four hospitals it invested in were "distressed," according to a lawsuit filed in federal court. Medical Properties Trust announced its investment in four Pennsylvania hospitals in 2019 as part of a $1.55 billion investment in 14 hospitals. From February 2019 until investors learned of the alleged fraud in February, the company "engaged in a widespread and multifaceted scheme to conceal from investors that, contrary to the company's public representations, its portfolio of assets were severely distressed and non-performing such that they could not make their rent payments," according to the suit filed by investor Fiyyaz Pirani in federal court in Birmingham. Pirani seeks to have the case certified as a class action lawsuit to represent other investors; require defendants to pay damages sustained by Pirani and the class of investors; award Pirani and the other members of the class prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and other relief the court "may deem just and proper." Besides the Birmingham company, three of its top executives -- Chairman, President and CEO Edward K. Aldag, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer R. Steven Hamner and Senior Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer J. Kevin Hanna -- were named in the lawsuit. Medical Properties Trust buys hospital buildings, then leases them back to the hospital operators. It was co-founded in 2003 by Aldag and is one of the country's largest real estate investment trusts, or REITs. The executives "knew that the adverse facts . . . had not been disclosed to and were being concealed from the public, and that the positive representations being made were then materially false and misleading," the suit stated, claiming they are "liable for the false statements and omissions pleaded" in the suit. A spokesman for the company could not be reached for comment on the legal filing. The company "masked the distressed state of its tenants" and "fraudulently transferred hundreds of millions of dollars in what amounted to a bailout of financially distressed tenants" before allegedly concealing "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," the suit went on to claim. As a result of the alleged maneuvers, Medical Properties Trust's public statements "were materially false and misleading at the time they were made," the filing states. Investors only learned of the the company's alleged actions, the suit claimed, after the investigative financial analysis firm Viceroy Research LLC began publishing a report in late January accusing Medical Properties Trust of engaging "in billions of dollars of uncommercial transactions with its tenants and their management teams in order to mask a pervasive revenue round-robin scheme and/or theft." Pirani's lawsuit claims Viceroy Research's report was validated on Feb. 23, when Medical Properties Trust disclosed an impairment charge of $171 million related to the Pennsylvania properties and a $112 million write-off of unbilled rent to the company it leased the Pennsylvania hospitals back to. Also on Feb. 23, Medical Properties Trust's chief operating officer stepped down and the company's stock price fell nearly nine percent. By March 1, the suit stated, the stock plunged nearly 18 percent and the company lost more than $1.2 billion in value. "As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages," the suit said.[GN] MONSANTO CO: Long Beach Gets Settlement Checks From PCBs Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- League Minnesota Cities reports that Minnesota cities and counties are beginning to receive sizable checks from a Monsanto Class Action Settlement. Cities should rest assured that these checks -- for approximately $17,000, $27,000, or $32,000 -- are legitimate. They are intended as compensation for testing and mitigation efforts, which might not have been necessary if not for the actions of the Class Action Defendant. Not too long ago, several large and mostly West Coast cities sued Monsanto for manufacturing a class of industrial chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were released into the environment between the 1930s and 1977. By early 2022, a class action lawsuit was established: City of Long Beach v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 2:16-CV-03493-FMO-AS (C.D. Ca.). The suit alleged various causes of action against Monsanto for PCB-related impairments to the environment, including to water bodies. The cities alleged that PCBs were present at sites and public properties, including in stormwater, stormwater and wastewater systems, water bodies, sediment, natural resources, fish, and wildlife. Members of the certified class include government subdivisions that are covered under MS4 (municipal separate storm-sewer system) permits in the drainage areas of or near to specific types of or listed water bodies. A notice was mailed to potential class members around the end of March 2022. As this was an opt-out class action, any potential members of the class that wanted to pursue the causes of action on their own had to opt out by July 25, 2022. View the court-approved notice sent to potential class members (pdf) Settlement payments During the week of April 17, all members of the class automatically received a payment from a portion of the settlement called the "Monitoring Fund." This included many government subdivisions in Minnesota. In addition to consideration for release from claims, the payment is intended to compensate for "PCB sampling and/or any other mitigation efforts in the Settlement Class Member's sole discretion, as part of compliance with applicable law." All class members within Minnesota should be aware, this is the only money they will receive automatically from the settlement. View a list of government subdivisions in Minnesota that received settlement payments (pdf) Finally, class members should know there is one more opportunity for additional funding but only for special cases. The settlement includes a "Special Needs Fund" set aside to address "a significant regional, state, or national benefit, cost, or contribution" regarding bodies of water "impaired by PCBs through stormwater and/or dry weather runoff." A special master has been appointed to receive and evaluate applications to this fund. Cities seeking to apply to the Special Needs Fund must do so within one year and 14 days of the date the Monitoring Fund checks were mailed.[GN] NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Grants Teran's Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dennis Montali of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California grants the Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned as In re OSCAR D. TERAN, Chapter 7, Debtor. OSCAR D. TERAN, Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Bankruptcy Case No. 10-31718-DM, Adversary Case No. 20-03075-DM (Bankr. N.D. Cal.). Oscar D. Teran filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 in this Court on May 10, 2010. In August 2020, he received his discharge, and his case was closed not long after that. No party sought a determination of the dischargeability of any of Teran's debts. Teran filed this adversary proceeding against Navient alleging violations of discharge orders; seeking a determination of the dischargeablility of debts that are outside the scope of the so-called "student loan," and a relief under California Civil Code, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Teran also alleged that he has brought this action on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated. Judge Montali finds the potential classes number in the hundreds in the Northern District of California alone, thousands in the Ninth Circuit, and still more nationwide. Since Navient does not dispute the numerosity of the proposed classes, Judge Montali is assured that Teran satisfies this element in the Motion. Judge Montali agrees with Teran that common questions of law and fact span across class members: Did Navient know that the class members' loans were discharged in bankruptcy; did Navient continue to collect on those loans post-discharge; and did Navient report those discharged loans to credit agencies with an outstanding balance? The questions and answers are the same throughout, as are the injuries associated with violation of bankruptcy discharges and with the economic damages associated with either paying, or facing penalties for not paying, discharged debts. In addition, Teran and other class members suffered the same injuries arising from Navient's alleged violation of the bankruptcy discharge. That Teran's debt arises from Navient's LAWLOANS program specifically does not matter, as all of the Navient loan programs that proposed class members have utilized result in the same or similar injury arising from Navient's conduct regarding those loans. As a typical representative of the class, Teran also presents no conflicts, and appears prepared to represent the class until the end of these proceedings. Teran and counsel have prosecuted the case without delay since its inception, and the court sees no reason to doubt their commitment moving forward. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Decision dated March 30, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/54a92656 from Leagle.com. NEWMARCH HOUSE: Sued Over Aged Care Home COVID-19 Deaths -------------------------------------------------------- mandurahmail.com.au reports that Shine Lawyers have launched a class action against the operators of a NSW aged care home in which 19 residents died during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. The virus spread through western Sydney's Anglicare-run Newmarch House in April and May 2020, with 37 out of 97 residents testing positive and 19 dying over that period. A further 34 staff members also caught the disease. Shine Lawyers say the class action has been filed in the NSW Supreme Court on behalf of 25 people whose relatives died from COVID-19 and allegedly negligent health care at Newmarch House during the pandemic lockdowns. Shine Lawyers associate Emily Clarke named Anglicare and the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District of NSW Health as defendants in the legal case. "Death was a sad reality of the pandemic but lives could have been saved at Newmarch House," Ms Clarke said. "Residents were being treated in a facility at the home which clearly was not able to care for them properly when they should have been transferred to an actual hospital as quickly as possible," she said. "We allege it was both the operators of the home and NSW Health whose failures contributed to these deaths. "On top of this, the poor communication with family members outside the home caused serious psychological injuries to the group members in this class action." Newmarch entered lockdown on March 23, 2020 - before the outbreak spread. The case is being led by Mark Fahey, whose mother Ann died on May 2, 2020. She was the 14th Newmarch resident to die from COVID-19. "I'll never understand how the situation got as bad as it did. It just seemed like everything they did led to another failing and another life lost," Mr Fahey said. "Mum was happy and enjoyed living at Newmarch House and had a lot of life left to live. "Nothing will bring her back, and we'll spend the rest of our lives wondering what would've happened if they'd managed the outbreak properly." During the outbreak, Newmarch implemented the "Hospital in the Home" program in which sick residents were treated onsite rather than being transferred to nearby hospitals. [GN] NIKE INC: D.C. Court Dismisses Grimsley Suit Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT ALEXANDER GRIMSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. NIKE INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00519 (UNA) (D.D.C.), Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denies the in forma pauperis application and dismisses the case. The matter is before the Court on its initial review of the Plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The matter has been filed as a class action. Plaintiffs Robert Grimsley, Gerald Leroy Barnes, II, Brian Anthony Crute, Angel Hutchinson Gallardo, Jr., and Joshua Lee Wheelock, as far as it can be understood, are currently civilly committed to Oregon State Hospital. Six additional Plaintiffs are also listed, however, there is no contact information provided for any of them, in contravention of D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1). The complaint is only signed by a few of the intended plaintiffs, and the IFP application is only signed by Grimsley, in contravention of Federal Rule 11(a). Preliminarily, Judge Chutkan states that although they provide no proof of their civil commitment, taking the Plaintiffs at their word, they would indeed be exempt from the prisoner filing fees set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(2) and (b) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). However, she says they are not exempt from any of the other provisions of the IFP statute and they have failed to provide the requisite information regarding their respective financial circumstances to establish that they qualify for IFP status thereunder. Consequently, their collective IFP application must be denied. Even if the Plaintiffs had filed proper IFP applications, or otherwise paid the filing fee, Judge Chutkan says they face additional hurdles that they cannot overcome. First, Grimsley attempts to bring the suit as a class action and on behalf of several of the other named plaintiffs, which he may not do, because a pro se litigant can represent only himself in federal court. Second, the Plaintiffs' allegations are frivolous. No context or detail is provided to connect the named defendants to the intended claims, as far as they can even be understood. For all of these reasons, Judge Chutkan denies the IFP application, dismisses the complaint without prejudice, and denies the request for temporary restraining order for the same reasons. A separate order accompanies her Memorandum Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3t68abdz from Leagle.com. OKTA INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Insider-Trading Allegations ------------------------------------------------------------------ biometricupdate.com reports that a shareholder of cloud-based authenticator Okta has filed a potential class action against the company making a number of accusations about insider trading. Top executives allegedly traded company shares based on information outsiders did not have, enriching themselves in the process. Their reputed actions cost the company money and damage to Okta's reputation. The case, 1:23-cv-00413-UNA, is being heard in the Delaware U.S. District Court. Austin Buono claims the executives presented an inaccurate picture of how a merger was going. They spoke publicly about how well integration of Okta sales staff was going with the sales team of Auth0, a competitor that Okta acquired in May 2021, according to court documents. That was untrue, according to Buono. The two sales teams were not working together, apparently, and were largely untrained on each other's product lines. Confusion of that kind likely would hurt earnings, and, he claims, some executives began selling shares. It was not until Aug. 31, 2022, that McKinnon and Tighe said during a financial analysts' call that integration was not occurring, according to court documents. They said they were rethinking growth plans that had made the merger look like a logical business decision. Named defendants are CEO Todd McKinnon, Chief Finance Officer Brett Tighe, Chief Operating Officer Frederic Kerrest, board members Shellye Archambeau, Robert L. Dixon, Jr., Patrick Grady, Ben Horowitz, Rebecca Saeger, Michael Stankey, and Michelle Wilson, board chair Jeff Epstein, Chief Accounting Officer Christopher Kramer, President of World Wide Field Operations Susan St. Ledger and Jonathan Runyan. Runyan, Okta's longtime general counsel, left the firm March 2, 2023. Between Sept. 2021 and September 2022, Buono alleges, McKinnon sold 85,649 shares and netted $19.4 million. Kerrest disposed of 54,618 shares for $13.3 million. St. Ledger sold 35,008 shares for about $8 million. Runyan sold 26,756 shares for $6.1 million. Tighe disposed of 15,381 shares for $2.4 million. Okta has had a tough go of it of late. It was hacked late last year, which, not at all incidentally, comes up in this and other lawsuits. [GN] PLDT INC: Asks Court to Deny Class Suit Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ Elijah Felice Rosales of The Philippine Star reports that Telco giant PLDT Inc. has appealed before a California court to deny the class action suit lodged against it by two law firms representing investors who reportedly incurred losses from the budget fiasco. In a regulatory filing, PLDT said it requested the California court handling its class action suit to reject Sophia Olsson and Kevin Douglas as lead plaintiffs. Olsson and Douglas are suing PLDT for allegedly misleading investors about its financial status from 2019 to 2022, the period when the telco sustained a budget overspend of P48 billion (now down to P33 billion). For PLDT, Olsson and Douglas should be prohibited to stand as lead plaintiffs in the class action case. PLDT said the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of the US discourages shareholders with a small interest from pursuing charges. The Pangilinan-led telco said the de minimis losses claimed Olsson and Douglas fell short of the basic requirement to become a lead plaintiff. As such, PLDT said they should never be allowed to represent the putative class going after it. In particular, Olsson, represented by The Rosen Law Firm, said she had owned two PLDT shares and suffered $22.69 in losses in the aftermath of the capital overrun. On the other hand, Douglas, lawyered by Levi and Korsinsky, LLP, said he had owned 35 shares in the telco giant and lost $240.23 in the fallout of the budget overspend. "The company argued in its memorandum that the movants' motions for appointment as the lead plaintiffs should be denied," PLDT said. The California court in charge of PLDT's case is scheduled to appoint a lead plaintiff on May 8. PLDT assured the Philippine Stock Exchange and investors that it would issue updates on the class action suit depending on what is allowed to be disclosed by Philippine and US laws. Between January and March, a number of law firms asked US-based investors of PLDT to join in the class action suit that would be lodged against the telco. The lawsuit seeks to recover losses incurred by stockholders when PLDT share prices dropped on the news of its budget overspend. Last year, PLDT shook the capital markets when it uncovered a spending breach of P48 billion in capital expenditures between 2019 and 2022 on its aggressive procurement of new technology. Since then, PLDT has brought down the capex overrun to P33 billion as a result of negotiations with major vendors and has also parted ways with some of its key executives who supervised its finances from 2019 to 2022. [GN] PORTOPICCOLO GROUP: Hooker, et al., Class Certification Bid Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Marselas of McKnights Long-Term Care News reports that while sympathetic to nursing home residents' claims that they received "deficient" care, a federal judge has ruled their case cannot be certified as a class action because claims and damages related to understaffing would be unique to each plaintiff. The April 20 ruling is a win for the private equity group Portopiccolo, which was the last owner of the now-closed Salisbury Center in North Carolina. Allegations in the lawsuit revolve around a decline in staffing levels there after the firm took control of the one-time Genesis Healthcare facility in early 2020. Plaintiffs Sybil Rummage and Betty Dea and their sponsors sought to turn their breach of contract claim into a class-action suit and reclaim Medicare and Medicaid dollars paid to the operators. In addition to Portipicollo, they named land owner Salisbury Two NC Propco and management services firm Accordius Health as defendants. Rummage and Dea said their care began to deteriorate after Portipicollo assumed operations and named the facility the Citadel in early 2020. "It was purposefully and consistently staffed inadequately such that it was unable to provide the services required for the safety and well-being of its residents and as promised," they argued in claiming breach of contract in the US District Court for North Carolina's Middle District. They cited more than 100 potential class members who would argue 14 common questions in court, including: the use of uniform policies and management systems; whether the law requires the facility to maintain staffing at a reasonable level; whether residents had an implied contract; and what damages could be pursued. But the defendants, including Simcha Hyman and Naftali Zanziper, principals of New Jersey-based Portopiccolo, argued that the plaintiffs and their representatives had not met an exhaustive list of standards needed for class certification. US District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder noted that anyone in the class must be able to prove "commonality," meaning they can demonstrate they have suffered the same injury. Later in his 53-page ruling, he explained that even if the facility had missed a requirement for average daily staffing levels, each plaintiff could have received a different level of care based on their individual circumstances. Plaintiffs outlined various problems from alleged chronic understaffing as part of the defendants' business model, such as medication and communication lapses. After it became The Citadel, the nursing home's federal rating declined and North Carolina placed the building in its Special Focus Facility program. By 2022, CMS had issued a notice terminating the facility from the Medicare program, and residents were relocated ahead of its closing in June 2022. McKnight's Long-Term Care News attempted to reach Portopiccolo for comment but a voicemail box at the firm's New Jersey office was not accepting messages. Defense attorneys also noted in their arguments that North Carolina has no minimum staffing requirement so that "even if Plaintiffs could somehow show that The Citadel was 'understaffed' pursuant to various metrics, it does not logically follow that The Citadel's staffing levels ever actually failed to meet the residents' needs.'" Noting that, the judge said the plaintiffs' request for class certification in the understaffing case "misses the mark." "Plaintiffs present a sympathetic case that elderly residents of a skilled nursing facility were subjected to deficient service, contrary to that for which they allegedly contracted," he wrote. "Whatever difficulties The Citadel experienced, moreover, may well have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, which inflicted a particularly severe toll on congregate managed care facilities. However . . . Plaintiffs' uniquely tailored claim for damages for breach of contract based on aggregate staffing hours is not readily amenable to class relief." [GN] PRAIRIE MEADOWS: Refusal to Certify Benda as Class Action Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ROBERT BENDA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellant v. PRAIRIE MEADOWS RACETRACK AND CASINO, INC., Appellee, and IOWA HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION and IOWA THOROUGHBRED BREEDERS AND OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Intervenors-Appellees, Case No. 21-0649 (Iowa), Judge David Noel May of the Supreme Court of Iowa affirms the district court's refusal to certify Benda's case as a class action. Benda claims that Prairie Meadows breached contracts that govern the distribution of winnings among owners and breeders of successful horses. Prairie Meadows is Iowa's only venue for live pari-mutuel racing of thoroughbred horses. Pari-mutuel horseracing is heavily regulated. At the federal level, the Interstate Horseracing Act regulates interstate commerce with respect to wagering on horseracing. The Act prohibits certain wagers on Prairie Meadows's races unless Prairie Meadows has a written agreement with the horsemen's group" that represents the majority of owners and trainers racing there. For thoroughbred racing, that "horsemen's group" is the Iowa Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (Iowa HBPA). There's also state-level regulation. Iowa Code chapter 99D creates a regulatory agency -- the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC) -- and vests it with broad powers, including the power to regulate the purse structure for race meetings. The case focuses on "supplement purses," also known as "purse supplements." These are additional amounts paid to owners and breeders of Iowa-bred horses that finish in first through fourth place. These supplement purses are in addition to other purses that the horses might win. Before the start of the racing season (which generally runs from May to September), Prairie Meadows enters into a contract that governs the terms of racing during that year's season. Consistent with the statutory scheme, Prairie Meadows enters these contracts with Iowa HBPA and the contracts are subject to approval by the IRGC. Through these contracts, Prairie Meadows and the Iowa HBPA determine (subject to IRGC approval) the total amounts that Prairie Meadows will set aside for thoroughbred racing for the season. The contracts also address how these amounts should be divided between base purses which are designated for Iowa-bred horses using the "Rasmussen formula." The Rasmussen formula was the product of an agreement between Jim Rasmussen, who represented Prairie Meadows; Dick Clark, who represented the Iowa HBPA; and Gary Lucas, who represented the Iowa Thoroughbred Breeders and Owners Association (ITBOA), a nonprofit organization responsible for promoting the breeding and racing of thoroughbreds in Iowa. Under the Rasmussen formula, the purse supplement amount is set at 20% of the "net purse amount," that is, 20% of the purses available to all horses. In 2010, Prairie Meadows and the Iowa HBPA entered into a five-year agreement for the 2010-2014 seasons. During the 2010 contract negotiations, there were disputes over a variety of issues. To avoid future disputes, the Iowa HBPA and others asked the 2011 legislature to codify the practice of allocating purse supplements. That spring, the legislature enacted Iowa Code section 99D.22. Prairie Meadows and the Iowa HBPA believed that, through this statute, the legislature had enacted their existing contractual practice -- the Rasmussen formula. But some ITBOA members were not satisfied with this approach. They thought purse supplements should be calculated as 20% of the total purse amount allocated to thoroughbreds. In November 2014, the ITBOA filed a petition for declaratory order with the IRGC, asking for the alternative formula to first take effect in the 2016 racing season. The Iowa HBPA intervened, arguing for continued adherence to the Rasmussen formula. Following a hearing in January 2015, the IRGC issued a declaratory order staying its order "until November 1, 2015" -- i.e., after the 2015 meet concluded. So, under the IRGC order, the new calculation would not take effect until the 2016 meet. Prairie Meadows could continue to use the Rasmussen formula for the 2015 meet. Over three years later, in December 2018, Benda commenced the action against Prairie Meadows. He claimed that he is a breeder and owner of Iowa-foaled horses that performed well enough in races at Prairie Meadows from 2012-2015 that Benda was entitled to breeder's awards and purse supplements in each year. Benda asserted "a class-wide claim to correct" what he characterized as a blatant miscalculation of awards due from Prairie Meadows to Iowa horse breeders and owners. Specifically, he alleged that Prairie Meadows had illegally used the Rasmussen formula during the proposed class period of 2012 through 2015. He claimed that this improper approach had resulted in an underpayment of $1.8 million. Benda asserted claims for unjust enrichment (count I), breach of implied contract (count II), breach of written contract (count III), breach of statutory duty (count IV), and declaratory relief (count V). Four of these five claims were based on alleged breaches of statutory duties. One of Benda's claims -- count III -- was a third-party beneficiary claim based on the written contracts between Prairie Meadows and the Iowa HBPA. As relief, he requested certification of the action as a class action and a judgment against Prairie Meadows in an amount sufficient to fully compensate the Plaintiff and the other Class Members for the underpayment of Iowa breeder's awards and purse supplements from 2012-2015, plus interest and attorney's fees. Prairie Meadows answered and asserted affirmative defenses. Among other things, it asserted that it is not a proper party in the action because it received no benefit from" any erroneous division of purses. Iowa HBPA filed a motion to intervene and an answer, emphasizing that Benda's lawsuit was premised on contracts between Iowa HBPA and Prairie Meadows. And, according to Iowa HBPA, there was no breach of the Prairie Meadows/Iowa HBPA contracts. It asserted that Benda's claims should be dismissed and his request to certify a class denied. The district court granted Iowa HBPA's motion to intervene. Soon after, Iowa HBPA filed a motion for summary judgment, which Prairie Meadows joined. While the summary judgment motion was pending, Benda filed a motion for class certification. He described the proposed class as "all horse breeders or owners who were eligible to receive supplement awards from Prairie Meadows for one or more Iowa-foaled horses from 2012-2015." ITBOA then moved to intervene. With its motion, ITBOA filed a resolution of its board of directors. ITBOA, Iowa HBPA, and Prairie Meadows all resisted Benda's motion for class certification. Each presented supporting evidence. F Meanwhile, the district court ruled on the pending summary judgment motion. It concluded that because section 99D.22(1)(c) creates no private cause of action, Benda's claim for breach of statutory duty (count IV) must be dismissed. Likewise, it reasoned, Benda cannot bring any other claims that rely on section 99D.22(1)(c) to create a common law duty. Accordingly, the court dismissed Benda's claims for unjust enrichment (count I), breach of implied contract (count II), and declaratory relief (count V). But it declined to dismiss Benda's claim for breach of the written contracts, believing that the agreements between Prairie Meadows and the Iowa HBPA created contractual duties that were independent of the statute. Soon after, the district court heard the motion for class certification. Ultimately, it entered an order denying certification. Benda appealed under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.264(3). Judge May states that the district court did not find that any of the prerequisites under Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.261 had been met. Its order focused on two concerns. First, it rejected the notion that class certification would advance the "fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy," as rule 1.262(2)(b) requires. Second, Benda is not an adequate representative party to protect the interests of the purported class members, as rule 1.262(2)(c) requires. Because Judge May concludes that the question of adequate representation is dispositive, he focuses on it. He finds no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that Benda is not an appropriate class representative. Rather, he sees multiple areas of conflict between Benda and the interests of potential class members. In short, Benda's suit faces substantial resistance. As the Iowa Supreme Court emphasized in Kragnes v. City of Des Moines, 810 N.W.2d 492, 498 (Iowa 2012), the applicable standard of review accords broad discretion to the district court in determining whether conflicts preclude class certification. Applying this deferential standard of review to the unusual facts of this particular case, Judge May finds no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that certification is inappropriate. He affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/zfwvzejv from Leagle.com. Todd M. Lantz (argued) -- tlantz@weinhardtlaw.com -- of the Weinhardt Law Firm, Des Moines, and Tyler M. Smith of Smith Law Firm, PLC, Altoona, for the Appellant. Dennis P. Ogden (argued) and Thomas L. Flynn of Brick Gentry, P.C., West Des Moines, for the Appellee. Ryan G. Koopmans (argued) of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, for Intervenor-Appellee Iowa Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association. Jeffrey M. Lipman (argued) -- info@lipmanlawfirm.com -- of Lipman Law Firm, P.C., West Des Moines, for Intervenor-Appellee Iowa Thoroughbred Breeders and Owners Association. RCI DINING: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers as Contractors, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ URSULA MOFFITT and KRISTEN WHITE, On Behalf of themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, v. RCI DINING SERVICES (HARVEY), INC.) D/B/A SCARLETT'S CABARET ST. LOUIS, Case No. 3:23-cv-01059 (S.D. Ill., March 30, 2023) alleges that the Defendant has had uniform policies and practices misclassifying Plaintiffs and the other members of their exotic dancer workforce at Defendant's Club as non-employee contractors. Arises from this misclassification, the Defendant fails to pay Plaintiff and the proposed class members minimum wage compensation and subjecting Plaintiff and the proposed class members to unlawful kickbacks and/or wage deductions, excessive credit card processing fees, and taking and assigning Plaintiff and the proposed class members' earned tips and gratuities in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, the suit says. The Plaintiff and the putative class members are and/or or were employed by Harvey to work or performed as exotic dancers for, at, or in Defendant's Scarlett's Cabaret St. Louis, located at 5841 Bunkum Road, Washington park, Illinois. The Defendant owned and operated Defendant's Club as a strip club, featuring nude and semi-nude female exotic dancers performing provocative and/or erotic dances for the entertainment of the Defendant's customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Athena M. Herman, Esq. ATHENA HERMAN LAW 416 Main Street, Suite 811 Peoria, Il 61602 Telephone: (309) 966-0248 E-mail: athena@athenahermanlaw.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com REALPAGE INC: Johnson Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Justin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01734 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-00334 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 Fax: (206) 623-0594 Email: breannav@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Heidi M Silton, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave., S. Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: bdclark@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com wjbruckner@locklaw.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 - 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 – 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 – 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 - 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 RESORTS WORLD: Campodonico Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled RICARDO CAMPODONICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESORTS WORLD LAS VEGAS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2023-003668-CA-01, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 12, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-21381 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based on multiple alleged telephonic sales calls (specifically, text messages) that Plaintiff purportedly received on his cellular phone without his consent, in alleged violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Resorts World Las Vegas, LLC is a resort, mall, and casino on the Las Vegas Strip in Winchester, Nevada.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Josh A. Migdal, Esq. Yaniv Adar, Esq, Esq. Annie D. Rosenthal, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 374-0440 E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com yaniv@markmigdal.com annie@markmigdal.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Ulloa Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL ANGEL ULLOA II, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC, and DOES 1 TO 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-23-604680, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 12, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01752 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges, on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, 10 total causes of action, nine of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and one of which is for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. provides security & guarding solutions.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Frank Magnanimo, Esq. Joseph R. Holmes, Esq. THARPE & HOWELL, LLP 15250 Ventura Blvd., Ninth Floor Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 205-9955 Facsimile: (818) 205-9944 E-mail: fmagnanimo@tharpe-howell.com jholmes@tharpe-howell.com SINGTEL OPTUS: Hit With Class Action Over Cybersecurity Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Lewis Jackson at Reuters reports that more than 100,000 current and former customers have joined a class action lawsuit against Australian telecommunications giant Optus over a cybersecurity breach last year that compromised roughly 1.2 million customers, lawyers said. Starting with the Optus breach in September, a spate of cyber attacks on Australia's corporate sector has exposed data from tens of millions of customers online and led the government to set up a new cyber security body and overhaul rules the home minister has called "bloody useless". Major firms like top grocer Woolworths Ltd (WOW.AX), and telecoms like Telstra (TLS.AX) and TPG Telecom (TPG.AX) have reported data breaches and unauthorised access, bringing to light corporate vulnerability to cyber attacks. The Australian government is planning to set up an agency coordinating cyber security tasked with ensuring government agencies work together during cyber incidents as well as overseeing the government's investment strategies on cyber security. A claim lodged in the federal court by Slater and Gordon alleged Optus breached laws and its own policies by failing to adequately protect customer data and destroy or de-identify former customer data, according to a release from the firm. Optus, a unit of Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (STEL.SI), said in an exchange filing that it had not yet been served with any court documents on the matter, and reiterated it would defend itself in the class action. The class action members want compensation for the time and money required to replace identity documents and for distress, frustration and disappointment caused by the breach. The release did not specify an amount. Claimants include a stalking victim who fears her life has been put in danger, the release said. Slater and Gordon Class Actions Practice Group Leader Ben Hardwick said the breach had potentially put vulnerable customers at risk of domestic violence and other crimes. "Very real risks were created by the disclosure of this private information that Optus customers had every right to believe was securely protected by their telecommunications and internet provider," Hardwick said.[GN] TIKTOK INC: E.K. Privacy Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled E.K., through her/his guardian, SHLOMA KALLER, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-10574, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 12, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02262 to the proceeding. Plaintiff E.K. brings this action individually and on behalf of minor children across the United States who use one of the most popular social media applications in existence, Defendants' "TikTok" application, to vindicate their online privacy rights. Like many web-based applications, TikTok contains an in-app web browser which allows TikTok users -- like Plaintiff E.K. and members of the putative Class -- to access external webpages and links, says the Plaintiff. TikTok Inc. operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 739-0622 E-mail: blake.yagman@davidllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Eli Bard Richlin, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 999-5800 Facsimile: (212) 999-5899 E-mail: erichlin@wsgr.com TIKTOK INC: Fleming Wiretapping Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CARINA FLEMING, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIKTOK INC. (f/k/a MUSICAL.LY, INC.) and BYTEDANCE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-07370, was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 12, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02260 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants have unlawfully intercepted private and personally identifiable data and content from unwitting TikTok users to generate massive revenues by selling and providing access to this data. Through their clandestine tracking activities, the Defendants have violated wiretap laws, unlawfully intruded upon users' privacy, violated their rights of privacy, and unjustly profited from the unlawful activities, says the suit. TikTok Inc. operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: kcooper@carellabyrne.com jcecchi@carellabyrne.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph E O'Neil, Esq. LAVIN, COLEMAN, O'NEIL, 706 Turnbridge Road Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (215) 351-7901 TIKTOK INC: Kowalski Wiretapping Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ISABELLA KOWALSKI, a Pennsylvania resident, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIKTOK INC. (f/k/a MUSICAL.LY, INC.) and BYTEDANCE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04947, was transferred from the United States District Court for District of New Jersey to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 12, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02264 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants have unlawfully intercepted private and personally identifiable data and content from unwitting TikTok users to generate massive revenues by selling and providing access to this data. Through their clandestine tracking activities, the Defendants have violated wiretap laws, unlawfully intruded upon users' privacy, violated their rights of privacy, and unjustly profited from the unlawful activities, says the suit. TikTok Inc. operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph E O'Neil, Esq. LAVIN, COLEMAN, O'NEIL, 706 Turnbridge Road Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (215) 351-7901 TMX FINANCE: Eimert Files Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- REY EIMERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. and TMX FINANCE LLC d/b/a "TitleMax," "TitleBucks," and "InstaLoan," Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00097-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 12, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard customers' personally identifiable information and failure to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members that their PII had been compromised. On March 30, 2023, TMX began notifying state attorneys general and customers that it had sustained a massive data breach in which a hacker gained unauthorized access to its networks between at least December 2022 and February 13, 2023. TMX admits the hacker accessed and may have exfiltrated highly-sensitive information stored on TMX's servers, including customer name, date of birth, passport number, driver's license number, federal/state identification card number, tax identification number, social security number and/or financial account information, and other information such as phone number, address, and email address, says the suit. As a result of TMX's failure to protect the sensitive information it was entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiff has already spent time responding to the breach and working to protect his identity from criminal fraudsters, and Plaintiff and Class Members also now face a significant present and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud, financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud now and into the indefinite future, the suit asserts. TMX is a Georgia-based consumer credit products company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Bevis, Esq. Roy E. Barnes, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 227-7375 E-mail: bevis@barneslawgroup.com roy@barneslawgroup.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. Tanner J. Edwards, Esq. Brandi S. Spates, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com tanner@stuevesiegel.com spates@stuevesiegel.com TOTAL MOBILE: Court Denies Katz's Bid for Leave to Take Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRUCE KATZ, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL MOBILE ULTRASOUND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 7342 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies Katz's motion for leave to take discovery from Total Mobile and unspecified third parties in order to identify members of a proposed class and calculate class-wide damages. Katz brought the putative class action on Aug. 29, 2022, alleging that Total Mobile sent him and others unsolicited advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). Katz is a New York corporation located in this District. Total Mobile Ultrasound is a New Jersey-based mobile testing diagnostic company that markets its services through facsimile advertisements. Katz alleges that on June 15, 2022, he received an unsolicited advertisement letter from Total Mobile Ultrasound through his fax machine. He alleges that the Advertisement harmed him by, inter alia, invading his privacy and causing him annoyance. Katz filed the case as a putative class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on Aug. 29, 2022, asserting that Total Mobile violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C), by faxing him, and others, advertisements without their permission. The complaint defines the class as follows: All persons and entities to whom: (a) Total Mobile and/or a third party acting on Total Mobile's behalf sent one or more faxes (b) for the purposes of obtaining contact information to send marketing materials to them (c) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this complaint and ends at the date of trial. Katz served Total Mobile on Sept. 13, 2022. To date, Total Mobile has neither answered nor appeared. On Dec. 6, 2022, Katz filed a proposed clerk's certificate of default judgment as to Total Mobile, along with an affidavit of Anthony Paronich, counsel for Katz, in support of the entry of default judgment. That same day, the Clerk of Court entered the proposed certificate of default. Katz has not, however, moved for default judgment pursuant to the Default Judgment Procedure of the Individual Practices of the Court. On Dec. 8, 2022, Katz -- in advance of moving for class certification against Total Mobile -- filed a motion for leave to take discovery from Total Mobile "and any involved third parties." In particular, Katz seeks to (1) ascertain the members of the Proposed Class, and (2) determine the amount of damages to which each class member is entitled. Judge Ramos states that Katz seeks leave from the Court to attain discovery from Total Mobile -- who has not appeared -- and "involved" third parties, to discern the identity of members of the Proposed Class and calculate damages on a class-wide basis. Katz does not, however, argue that such information is necessary for him to move for class certification, pursuant to Rule 23. Nor does Katz cite any instance in which a court has permitted a plaintiff to pursue discovery against a defendant who has not appeared or answered for purposes of calculating damages on a class-wide basis before the proposed class has been certified. Courts in this Circuit have proved very cautious about compelling disclosure of the identities of putative class members at the pre-certification stage. Accordingly, Judge Ramos denies Katz's motion. Katz is directed to move for default judgment against Total Mobile as to his individual claims, in accordance with the Individual Practices of the Court, no later than April 28, 2023. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 16. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/7rmx3kcv from Leagle.com. TRANSCO LINES: Brown FLSA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Ark. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CODY BROWN v. TRANSCO LINES, INC., Case No. 60CV-23-674 (Filed Jan. 27, 2023) was removed from the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on March 30, 2023. The Eastern District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00307-JM to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs complaint alleges a violation of federal statutes and regulations including that: (1) Defendant's alleged failure to reimburse Plaintiff for expenses incurred on Defendant's behalf was a "kick back" in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and 29 C.F.R. section 531.35; and (2) "Plaintiff did not receive a weekly minimum guarantee" pursuant to 29 C.F.R. section 541.604(b). Transco offers logistics, transportation management, and freight services. Russellville, Arkansas.[BN] The Defendants is represented by: Kerri E. Kobbeman, Esq. CONNER & WINTERS, LLP 4375 North Vantage Drive, Suite 405 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 582-5711 Facsimile: (479) 587-1426 E-mail: kkobbeman@cwlaw.com - and - A. Jack Finklea, Esq. Andrew R. Brehm, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 63 7-1777 Facsimile: (317) 687-2414 E-mail: jfinklea@scopelitis.com abrehm@scopelitis.com UNILEVER UNITED: Simmons Benzene Suit Transferred to Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that the complaint was originally filed in Florida federal court in November 2022 but has since been transferred to Connecticut under the first-filed rule in the case - captioned Simmons, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00491, reports Law360. Unilever United States markets and sells dry and foam shampoo aerosol products sold under its Dove, Nexxus, Suave, TRESemme, and Bed Head brands containing the cancer-causing chemical benzene, a class action lawsuit filed last November alleges. Plaintiffs Samantha Simmons, Ansleigh Walters, Marykay Thrower, Jackie Spivey, Laura Martson, and Chrissie Humenny claim Unilever fails to disclose the alleged presence of benzene when marketing and selling the products. "By failing to disclose the presence of benzene or the risk of benzene contamination … Plaintiff has been denied the opportunity to make those informed financial and healthcare decisions," the Unilever class action states. The complaint was originally filed in Florida federal court in November 2022 but has since been transferred to Connecticut under the first-filed rule, reports Law360. Simmons, Walters, Thrower, Spivey, Martson, and Humenny want to represent a nationwide class and Florida subclass who purchased Dove, Nexxus, Suave, TRESemme, or Bed Head dry shampoo or foam shampoo since Nov. 17, 2018. The presence of benzene in the dry and foam shampoo aerosol products was revealed in a 2020 study conducted by Valisure, an independent analytical pharmacy, according to the Unilever class action. "Through its testing, Valisure discovered that certain aerosol sunscreen products contained benzene, a known human carcinogen," the Unilever class action states. Simmons, Walters, Thrower, Spivey, Martson, and Humenny claim Unilever is guilty of negligent misrepresentation/omission, and of violating strict liability and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive and declaratory relief along with an award of actual and statutory damages for themselves and all class members. Pierre Fabre USA, L'Oreal USA, Unilever, DeMert Brands and Church & Dwight all faced complaints in 2022 over claims they sold aerosol products containing benzene. Have you purchased a Dove, Nexxus, Suave, TRESemme, or Bed Head dry or foam shampoo aerosol product? Let us know in the comments! The plaintiffs are represented by R. Jason Richards and Bryan F. Aylstock of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC. The Dry shampoos benzene class action lawsuit is Simmons, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00491, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Class Deal in Arredondo Suit Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BRIANNA ARREDONDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-07665-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal.), Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. On Dec. 21, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a class action settlement with University of La Verne, in accordance with a settlement agreement filed with the Court on Nov. 14, 2022. It previously appointed (i) Plaintiff Brianna Arredondo as the Class Representative and (ii) The Sultzer Law Group, P.C., Leeds Brown Law P.C., Shoop, A Professional Law Corporation, and Charon Law, as the Class Counsel. It certified a class of "all University of La Verne undergraduate students, excluding students in the Campus Accelerated Program for Adults, who paid tuition and/or the Mandatory Fees at La Verne's Main/Central campus location during the Spring 2020 term/semester." The Preliminary Approval Order also authorized the Plaintiff to disseminate notice of the settlement, the Final Approval Hearing and related matters, to the Settlement Class. Having considered all matters submitted to it including the complete record of the Action and good cause appearing therefore, Judge Scarsi grants final approval of the Settlement. He finally reaffirms the Court's ruling certifying Plaintiff Brianna Arredondo as the Class Representative and the law firms of The Sultzer Law Group, P.C., Leeds Brown Law P.C., Shoop, A Professional Law Corporation, and Charon Law as the Class Counsel and the ruling certifying the class that aligns with the Settlement Class. Judge Scarsi finds that the settlement is in all respects fair, reasonable, and adequate. He therefore finally approves the settlement for all the reasons set forth in the Motion for Final Approval. The Parties and the Claim Administrator will continue to effectuate the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms. By operation of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Plaintiff, the Settlement Class Members, and the Releasing Parties finally, forever, and completely resolve, discharge, and release all of the Released Claims against the Released Parties. For the reasons stated in the separate Order on the Class Counsel's Application for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative payment, the following amounts will be distributed by the Settlement Claims Administrator from the Qualified Settlement Fund: (i) Class Counsel's Costs, Fees and Expenses: $1.1 million; (ii) Class representative payment to Plaintiff Brianna Arredondo: $5,000; and (iii) Individual Class Member payments to Kaylen Henry, Jovanni Echevarria, and Savanah Gherir: $1,500 each. Such amounts will be due and paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Except as provided in the Order, the Plaintiff will take nothing against the Defendant by her Complaint. Judge Rubin's Order will constitute a final judgment binding the Parties and the Settlement Class Members with respect to the Litigation. Without affecting the finality of the judgment hereby entered, the Court expressly retains exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement. The Parties are directed to implement and consummate the settlement according to the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed. A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/63xmwna9 from Leagle.com. VENUS CONCEPT INC: Settles Yzeiraj Shareholder Suit in CA Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Venus Concept Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2023, that in 2018 and 2019, a settlement was granted final approval in the District court on September 9, 2021 with regards to a shareholder class action complaint was filed against its subsidiary, Restoration Robotics, Inc., certain of its former officers and directors, certain of its venture capital investors, and the underwriters of the initial public offering (IPO). Case captioned "Yzeiraj v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al.," Case No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF was filed in the United States District court for the Northern District of California and assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Restoration Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC in October 13, 2017 in connection with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for final distribution of the settlement funds in said federal action was held on February 16, 2023, and the District Court granted the motion for final distribution on February 17, 2023. VENUS CONCEPT: Faces Li Shareholder Suit in CA Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Venus Concept Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2023, that in 2018 and 2019, that a putative shareholder class action complaints was filed against its subsidiary, Restoration Robotics, Inc., certain of its former officers and directors, certain of its venture capital investors, and the underwriters of the initial public offering (IPO). Case captioned "Li v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al.," No. 19CIV08173, was filed in the Superior court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, and assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. Said complaint alleged, among other things, that the Restoration Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Venus Concept Inc. is a global medical technology company based in Ontario. VENUS CONCEPT: Faces Wong Shareholder Suit in CA Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Venus Concept Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2023, that in 2018 and 2019, that a putative shareholder class action complaints was filed against its subsidiary, Restoration Robotics, Inc., certain of its former officers and directors, certain of its venture capital investors, and the underwriters of the initial public offering (IPO). Case captioned "Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al.," No. 18CIV02609, was filed in the Superior court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, and assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. Said complaint alleged, among other things, that the Restoration Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Venus Concept Inc. is a global medical technology company based in Ontario. VENUS CONCEPT: Settles Guerrini Shareholder Suit in CA Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Venus Concept Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2023, that in 2018 and 2019, that a settlement was granted final approval in the District court on September 9, 2021 with retards to a shareholder class action complaint was filed against its subsidiary, Restoration Robotics, Inc., certain of its former officers and directors, certain of its venture capital investors, and the underwriters of the initial public offering (IPO). Case captioned "Guerrini v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al.," Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD was filed in the United States District court for the Northern District of California and assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Restoration Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the SEC in September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC in October 13, 2017 in connection with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for final distribution of the settlement funds in said federal action was held on February 16, 2023, and the District Court granted the motion for final distribution in February 17, 2023. Venus Concept Inc. is a global medical technology company based in Ontario. VITAL FARMS: Joint Bid to Quash Additional Nonparty Subpoena OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., v. VITAL FARMS, INC., Case No. 2:22-mc-00024-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.), Hon. Judge Robert J. Krask entered an order: 1. granting PETA and the Foundation's joint motion to quash additional nonparty subpoena; 2. granting PETA and the Foundation's requests for fees; 3. directing Vital to pay the reasonable attorneys' fees PETA and the Foundation incurred in briefing their motions to quash, memoranda in support of the motions, replies, and responses to sur-replies in the matters before this Court. Group of consumer plaintiffs sued Vital in the related litigation in the Western District of Texas. On May 20, 2021, a putative class of consumer plaintiffs sued Vital, an egg producer, in the Westem District of Texas, alleging that Vital engages in deceptive trade practices in violation of several states' unfair competition or trade practices laws. The complaint in Usler alleges that Vital "markets itself as an ethical company that treats animals in an ethical, humane, and transparent manner," but that its marketing "is false and misleading, and its consumers have been tricked into paying an unjustifiably high premium." The complaint alleges that Vital holds itself out as an "ethical food company" with an "ethical mission" "exemplified by a focus on the humane treatment of farm animals," but that, among other things, it acquires female chicks from, and thus financially supports, hatcheries that kill newborn male chicks. The complaint asserts a breach of express warranty claim under Texas and other states' laws, alleging that Vital "directly warranted" to consumers that its eggs are "produced in a humane, ethical, and transparent fashion," PETA is a "nonprofit vegan advocacy and animal protection organization. Vital Farms is a Certified B Corporation that offers a range of ethically produced foods nationwide. A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ab08Ex at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Wins Bid to File GAIN Guide Under Seal --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA CARR and LASHAWNA WICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v. WALMART INC., a corporation, WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01429-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order that the Walmart's application for leave to file under seal the GAIN Guide is granted. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KLi4KG at no extra charge.[CC] WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due August 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH ELLIOTT, SUSAN YOUNG, and GLORIA BALALA SAITO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WARRANTECH CONSUMER PRODUCT SERVICES, INC. and TAG WARRANTY CORPORATION, f/k/a AMT WARRANTY CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00091-MLB (N.D. Ga.), Hon. Judge Michael Brown entered a second amended scheduling order as follows: -- End of class discovery and beginning Aug. 14, 2023 of fact discovery: -- Deadline to file class certification Aug. 30, 2023 Motion: -- Deadline for Plaintiff to designate Oct. 28, 2023 Experts: -- Deadline for Defendants to designate March 1, 2024 Experts: -- Deadline for parties to designate March 1, 2024 rebuttal experts: -- Close of discovery: May 1, 2024 -- Deadline to file dispositive motions: June 1, 2024 Warrantech provides innovative auto finance and insurance programs to automobile dealerships. A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KTMt9N at no extra charge.[CC] WAWA INC: Shawn, Mcglade Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class of Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-06019-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs Shawn and Karen McGlade, on their own behalf and on behalf of a Class of current and former employees of Defendant Wawa submit a motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Wawa is an American chain of convenience stores and gas stations located along the East Coast of the United States, operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H78SPU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq. William H. Platt II, Esq. Fatih Oguz, Esq. HAVILAND HUGHES 124 South Maple Avenue – Suite 220 Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 609-4661 E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com platt@havilandhughes.com oguz@havilandhughes.com WEBSTER BANK: Faces Investigation Over Alleged Data Breach Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Silver Golub & Teitell LLP (SGT), a Connecticut class action and complex litigation law firm, is investigating potential class action claims arising out of a data breach Connecticut-based Webster Bank disclosed on April 10, 2023 that has resulted in the sensitive personal information of 153,754 Connecticut customers. The types of information wrongfully disclosed include customer names together with bank account numbers, and in many instances social security numbers. According to Webster Bank, the data breach occurred between November 27, 2022, and January 22, 2023 when unauthorized third parties accessed certain the computer systems of third-party fraud detection vendor Guardian Analytics used by Webster Bank and acquired files containing Webster Bank's clients' personal information. On April 10, 2023, Webster Bank began notifying customers via letters sent by U.S. mail. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong's office is investigating the Webster Bank data breach and is working with Webster Bank and Guardian Analytics in the process. If you are a Webster Bank customer and have received a letter from Webster Bank notifying you that your informed was compromised in the data breach and would like to learn more about your legal options, you can visit SGT's investigation on our website here, or you can contact SGT attorney Brett L. Burgs via email at bburgs@sgtlaw.com or by calling (203) 325-4491. [GN] WELLS FARGO: California Court Trims Fraud Claims in McCraner Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MCCRANER, SHARON STIANSEN, JANET POLLARD, MICHAEL DARLINGTON, SUSAN R. LANDREAU, JOHN N. TUFFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a corporation, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national banking association, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-1246-LAB-WVG, (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California: (1) denies in part and grants in part the motion to dismiss first amended complaint filed by Defendants Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo, N.A.; and (2) denies Wells Fargo's motion to strike class allegations. Plaintiffs John McCraner, Sharon Stiansen, Janet Pollard, Michael Darlington, Susan R. Landreau, and John N. Tuffield filed this putative class action against Defendants Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo, N.A. for providing banking services to three separate fraudulent marketing schemes. The Principals: Phillip Peikos, David Barnett, Brian Phillips, Richard Fowler, Ryan Fowler, and Nathan Martinez -- operated three online subscription scams through their companies: Apex Capital Group, LLC (controlled by Peikos and Barnett), Triangle Media Corporation (controlled by Phillips), and Tarr Inc. (controlled by the Fowlers and Martinez). Each of the Enterprises relied on banking services from Wells Fargo to effect its fraudulent scheme. The Plaintiffs assert four claims against Wells Fargo: (1) aiding and abetting fraud; (2) conspiracy to commit fraud; (3) violation of California Penal Code Section 496; and (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Wells Fargo moves to dismiss each claim, and to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations. Judge Burns denies Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss the FAC's claims as time barred. He finds the Plaintiffs' claims are timely. The allegations in the FAC indicate that the earliest date Plaintiffs could have learned of Wells Fargo's alleged misconduct was after the first document production in June 2019. The limitations period for the Plaintiffs' claims expired in June 2022 -- three years later. The original Complaint was filed on July 8, 2021, which is well within the limitations period. Judge Burns finds the FAC makes sufficient factual allegations to plausibly state an aiding and abetting claim. The FAC's allegations about Wells Fargo's knowledge of the chargeback rates and the Enterprises' sales tactics, together with the allegations made in the original Complaint, support an inference that Wells Fargo "must have known" that the Enterprises were defrauding consumers. Judge Burns also finds the FAC sufficiently alleges that Wells Fargo provided substantial assistance to the fraud. Next, Judge Burns finds the FAC's allegations are sufficient to allege Wells Fargo's knowledge of and concurrence in the Enterprises' schemes. In the FAC, the Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo knew the Enterprises cycled through shell companies and straw owners; had an interest in opening new accounts due to a high-pressure sales culture and used atypical banking procedures to accommodate the Enterprises' fraud, including coaching the Principals. Because Judge Burns has already determined that the FAC sufficiently alleges that Wells Fargo knew the Enterprises were defrauding consumers, the FAC plausibly states a claim that the money Wells Fargo received from the Enterprises was obtained through fraud and false pretenses, which is sufficient to allege a theft within the meaning of California Penal Code Section 496. In addition, the FAC pleads claims for equitable relief under California's Unfair Competition Law but doesn't plead inadequate legal remedies. Judge Burns grants Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss the FAC's UCL claim without prejudice. McCraner, Stiansen, and Pollard each received full refunds, but didn't receive compensation for the loss of their money with a payment of interest. Finding these Plaintiffs have suffered an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing, Judge Burns denies Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Given the early stage of the case, Judge Burns finds that Wells Fargo's motion to strike is premature. Wells Fargo "has not filed an answer, the Court has not issued a scheduling order for discovery or class certification purposes, the Parties have not conducted any class-related discovery, and a motion for class certification is not presently before the Court." A full-text copy of the Order dated March 30, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/373vznaz from Leagle.com. [*] Major CRA Faces Class Action Over SSN Verification Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- pre-employ.com reports that the lawsuit claims the CRA violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). It alleged that the CRA reported one consumer's Social Security Number (SSN) as unverified. In addition to this mistake, it did not provide all the data collected about individuals when asked for a complete file disclosure. The suit explained that employers use the SSN verification product the CRA offers to confirm whether potential employees have valid SSNs. As such, the verification process searches the CRA's database and checks if the applicant matches an SSN in its records. Once informed by the CRA of the results, the employer typically uses this information when deciding whether to hire the applicant. The complaint detailed how the plaintiff applied for a job with a prominent drugstore chain in May of 2021. As such, the company requested permission to use a third party to run a background check on the applicant. According to the complaint, the company's SSN verification came from the defendant. However, the CRA's verification system failed due to a system mistake. As a result, the CRA incorrectly informed the third-party company that the plaintiff's SSN did not match any in its records. The third party then sent this information to the drugstore. This mistake caused the drugstore to consider the plaintiff ineligible for employment. However, this case revealed that the plaintiff has a valid SSN and authorization to work in the United States. As a result of this determination, a manager took the plaintiff aside and terminated her due to the consumer report. As a result, the plaintiff requested her file from the CRA to investigate the issue. The lawsuit claimed the CRA provided information that did not relate to the SSN verification. In response to this, the court claims that the CRA violated the FCRA's requirements despite full awareness of its requirements. In addition, the lawsuit seeks to represent individuals impacted by the CRA's failure to verify their SSNs. This suit would include those affected within the previous two years and request their file. However, the defining condition requires that they did not receive information regarding their SSN. As this lawsuit clearly illustrates, accuracy is crucial for consumer reports for employment. The best way to do this is to partner with a trustworthy background check provider. The right partner will have experience with the FCRA, its requirements, and all state and local consumer reporting laws.[GN] [*] Sen. Gillibrand Speaker at May 8 Class Action Conference ------------------------------------------------------------ Catch Senator Kirsten Gillibrand at the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on May 8, 2023. Senator Gillibrand will serve as Keynote Luncheon Speaker at CAME 2023. Senator Gillibrand, who was first elected to Congress in 2006, among others, helped lead the fight to pass the PACT Act, which ensured veterans exposed to toxins during their service would get the care and benefits they earned. Senator Gillibrand is chair of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, and also serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senate Agriculture Committee and Senate Aging Committee. Register now for the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! The in-person conference will be held at The Harmonie Club, New York City, on Monday, May 8, 2023. This year's event boasts of an All-Star lineup of speakers: * Michael P. Canty, Partner, Labaton Sucharow LLP * Neil Kornswiet, CEO, Optium Capital LLC * Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP * Edward E. Neiger, Esq., Co-Managing Partner, Ask LLP * Graham Newman, Partner, Chappell, Chappell & Newman * Bola Oyesanya, Managing Director and Private Banker, Citi Law Firm Group * Paige Richardson, Director of Operations, Milestone * Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP * Daniel Stefany, Associate, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP * Thomas R. Waskom, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Oyesanya is this year's conference chair. The value-packed event features special presentations from keynote speakers, live panel discussions with industry experts and networking with other professionals. Contact: Bernard Toliver, CMP (240) 629-3300 ext. 149 E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. The conference is presented by Beard Group, Inc. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Defends Exposure Cases ------------------------------------------------------ Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C Distribution Corporation have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C were allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. Certain asbestos-related proofs of claims in the bankruptcy case have been withdrawn in connection with closing the bankruptcy discussed below. Each entity defending these cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these cases. The defense of these cases had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it was forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation. Such bankruptcy case is in the process of being closed. Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in that regard." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3V7v3Li ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYCAL Court Upholds $15MM Kaiser Gypsum Verdict ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aubree Winkler & Austin O'Malley, writing for jdsupra.com, reports that on March 16, 2023, the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) Court denied Defendant Kaiser Gypsum's post-trial motions following a $15M plaintiffs' verdict in the matter of Munir Seen, New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 190225/2018. Kaiser Gypsum moved for: 1) a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; 2) an order for a new trial; or, alternatively, 3) a remittitur of what Kaiser Gypsum called a clearly excessive verdict. All were denied. The Honorable Suzanne J. Adams, J.S.C., issued the decision last month after presiding over the trial in July of 2022. The Plaintiff, Mr. Seen, was a drywall installer from 1967 to 1979 and claimed 43 months of pain and suffering prior to his death from mesothelioma. He identified 11 entities that he claimed contributed to his asbestos-related disease, including Kaiser Gypsum, who was the sole remaining defendant at trial. The jury awarded the Seen estate $15 Million for Mr. Seen's pain and suffering prior to his passing, finding Kaiser Gypsum 70% liable. Kaiser Gypsum's post-trial motion touched on several key issues that often present themselves in NYCAL. First, Kaiser Gypsum argued that Plaintiffs' experts' proofs failed to establish causation. Next, it argued that a new trial was warranted because: 1) Mr. Seen's video deposition testimony was improperly admitted for use at trial since Kaiser Gypsum was not a defendant at the time of the deposition; 2) Kaiser Gypsum was prejudiced by the Court's preclusion of its cross-examination of Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Jaqueline Moline; and 3) Kaiser Gypsum was not given proper notice that Plaintiff's counsel would be presenting a talc-contamination theory at trial. Finally, Kaiser Gypsum sought a remittitur of the $15 Million, arguing it was excessive and thus deviated from reasonable compensation. Denying the motion, Judge Adams first addressed the causation argument, finding that Plaintiff's proofs satisfied the causation standard as set forth by the Court of Appeals in Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 7 N.Y.3d 434, 448 (2006) ("It is well-established that an opinion on causation should set forth a plaintiff's exposure to a toxin, that the toxin is capable of causing the particular illness (general causation) and that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness (specific causation)") and Nemeth v. Brenntag North America, 38 N.Y.3d 336, 345-46 (2002) (reversing the lower court and entering summary judgment for defendant because plaintiff’s expert did not establish a correlation between the asbestos fiber levels to which plaintiff may have been exposed and the amount of inhaled asbestos that would have caused defendant's lung cancer) and that no new trial was warranted. According to the Court, Dr. Moline satisfied the applicable causation standard by relying on studies reporting actual measurements from work with joint compound and was able to provide estimated numerical levels of exposure to joint compound for the tasks Mr. Seen performed during his career. The Court was likewise unimpressed with Kaiser Gypsum's three arguments for a new trial, finding none of them convincing, and thus no new trial was warranted. Finally, Judge Adams found that the jury's $15 Million award for 43 months of pain and suffering (approximately $350,000 per month) was within the range of prior awards and thus did not materially deviate from what was reasonable. This monthly figure, which has often been used as an assessment of reasonableness for pain and suffering damage awards in New York, is slightly higher than previous awards from NYCAL juries that were thought by many defendants to set the top-range of a sustainable monthly award. On March 24, 2023, Kaiser Gypsum filed its Notice of Appeal. A key factor on appeal will be an assessment of the reasonableness of the pain and suffering calculation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Receives A&E Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Travelers Companies, Inc., in the ordinary course of its insurance business, has received and continues to receive claims for insurance arising under policies issued by the Company asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos and environmental-related exposures that are the subject of related coverage litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is defending asbestos and environmental-related litigation vigorously and believes that it has meritorious defenses; however, the outcomes of these disputes are uncertain. In this regard, the Company employs dedicated specialists and comprehensive resolution strategies to manage asbestos and environmental loss exposure, including settling litigation under appropriate circumstances. Currently, it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and their impact on future loss development for claims and litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims. Any such development could be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as future changes, if any, in applicable legislation. Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the Company's current insurance reserves. In addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or changes in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges that could be material to the Company's results of operations in future periods. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/40D4bnF ********* 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 ***