/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230502.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 2, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 88 Headlines 3M CO: Adams & Mounts Suits Qualify as Mass Actions, 6th Cir. Says 3M COMPANY: AFDSNY Suit Removed to S.D. New York 3M COMPANY: Matthews Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Myers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Phipps Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams A-1 COLLECTION: Court Continues Stay of Merit Discovery in Fullmer ABC SIGNATURE: Court Vacates Class Cert Briefing Schedule ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Anderson Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 31 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to May 22 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Must File Class Cert Docs Under Seal AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Seeks to File Materials Under Seal AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ANGLICARE: New Class Action Seeks Accountability Over COVID Deaths APPLE INC: Court Dismisses w/o Prejudice Barrett's Claims ARTIPHON INC: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AUDIBLE INC: Sealing of Confidential Info Temporarily OK'd AURORA BEHAVIORAL: Martin Suit Removed to N.D. California BENESYS INC: Campa Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty BON APPETIT: Nordman Suit Remanded to San Mateo County Super. Court BOYNE USA: Class Action Cert Opening Briefs Set for May 3 BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Bid Granted; Dobbs Suit Dismissed BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Bid Granted; Dumas' Claims Tossed BROADCAST SUPPLY: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CALIFORNIA NATURAL: Devendra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CANADA: Indigenous Members Sue Over Harmful Dental Work CASPER SLEEP: Tate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CENTIMARK CORP: Bids for Class Certification Due April 25, 2025 CHSPSC LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges CLUB 360: Golan Files Bid for Class Certification CORNERSTONE TRADING: Sued Over Fire's Adverse Health Effects CREDIT SUISSE: S.D.N.Y. Dismisses Gomez Securities Class Action DONOTPAY INC: Lee Sues Over Automatic Renewal Scheme DRESSER LLC: Class Certification Bid Deadline Extended in Barnes ECOMLT LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EQONEX LIMITED: Freedman Normand Files Securities Class Action FORD MOTOR: Defeats Consumers' Class Suit Appeal Over F-150 Trucks FORD MOTOR: Make Voluntary Recalls as Defense in Engine Defect Suit FREEDOM CONSTRUCTION: Mongelos Sues Over Nonpayment of OT Premiums GENERAL MOTORS: Oral Argument on Class Cert Set for May 17 GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Shaffer Seeks Class Certification HIGHMARK BCBSD: Walker, et al., Seek Final OK of Class Settlement HORIZON BANCORP: Sued Over Alleged Deficient Internal Accounting INTER-CON SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Young Suit Asserts INTERIM HOME: Toole Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime IT'S JUST LUNCH: Vrugtman, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes JACKSON HEWITT: Final Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought JACKSON HEWITT: Santiago Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California JOHN BALDWIN: Thompson Bid for Intervention in Davis Suit Nixed KINKISHARYO INT'L: Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought LG ELECTRONICS: Brito Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 3rd Circuit LINCOLN BENEFIT: Court Certifies Class of Insureds in Farley Suit LYONS MAGNUS: Deringer Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice LYONS MAGNUS: Radford Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice LYONS MAGNUS: Sinico Suit Voluntary Dismissed MALLINCKRODT PLC: Edelman Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. MDL 2406: A4 Suit Consolidated in Blue Cross/Shield Antitrust Row MDL 2441: Two Suits Consolidated in Hip Implant Liability Row MDL 2873: Nine Suits Consolidated in Film-Forming Foams Product Row MDL 2924: 2 Suits Consolidated in Ranitidine Product Liability Row MDL 2948: Two Suits Consolidated in TikTok Consumer Privacy Row MDL 3004: Paraquat Suit Transferred to S.D. Ill. MDL 3014: Gandy Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. MDL 3043: Ct. Denies Transfer of LNK Suit to Acetaminophen Row META PLATFORMS: $725MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 7 MICHAEL KORS: Fails to Pay Wages on Time, Haley Suit Alleges MISSISSIPPI: Preliminary Injunction Entered in Bosarge v. Edney MMM CONSUMER: Court OK's Oral Argument on Bid to Compel Arbitration NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Local Police Act With Racial Bias, Suit Alleges NEW HAMPSHIRE: Fitzmorris Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice NEW YORK LIFE: Filing of Bid for Class Certification Due June 26 NEWREZ LLC: Yates Submits Supplemental Brief for Class Status Bid NVIDIA CORPORATION: Davenport Files Suit in N.D. California OHIO ALUMINUM: Johnson Sues Over Manufacturing Employees' Unpaid OT OPTIMUM: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Kvinikadze Suit Alleges PACIFICORP: Trial in Class Suit Over Widespread Wildfires Begins PARKER HANNIFIN: Data Breach Suit Reaches $1.75M Class Settlement PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Parties in Wilson Stipulate Settlement Deal PRIME RANGERS: Griner Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Wages PULTE HOME: Mount, et al., Lose Bid for Class Certification RECKITT BENCKISER: July 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set RELIANCE VITAMIN: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Costa Suit RUZE INC: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Toro Suit S2E INC: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SNAP NURSE: Ramirez Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action SOCIETE AIR FRANCE: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Kaur Suit Says SPEAR WILDERMAN: Faces Class Action Over 2021 Data Breach ST. LOUIS, MO: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response TASTE SALUD LLC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TD BANK: Filing of Class Cert. Bid in Nelipa Due August 31 TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phan Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice TREND AND TIPSY: Gilburd Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona TUFIN SOFTWARE: Case Proceedings, All Existing Deadlines Stayed UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Simmons Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut UNILEVER UNITED: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Pardini's Claims UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks Approval of Administrative Bid to Seal UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Hoelzer Appeals Case Dismissal VOYAGER 888: Seeks to Correct Class Cert Bid Opposition WEXFORD HEALTH: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Larkin YOUNG WOMEN'S: Denies Diabetes Care in Program, Bowling Says ********* 3M CO: Adams & Mounts Suits Qualify as Mass Actions, 6th Cir. Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BRIAN ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. 3M COMPANY, fka Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 23-5232 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reverses the district court's determination that two state-court complaints, each joining more than 100 plaintiffs, does qualify as CAFA mass actions. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, often called CAFA, extends federal diversity jurisdiction to certain "mass actions" involving "100 or more persons." At issue is whether two state-court complaints, each joining more than 100 plaintiffs, qualify as CAFA mass actions. The Sixth Circuit concludes that they do and reverses the district court's contrary determination. Brian Adams and Charles Mounts mined coal in Kentucky. Both wore respirators to protect their lungs from coal dust. Both nevertheless developed pneumoconiosis, a disease caused by inhaled dust particles. Adams and Mounts sued 3M along with some other respirator manufacturers and distributors. They alleged that 3M and the other manufacturers, all out-of-state corporations, made defective respirators; that various Kentucky retailers distributed them; and that they contracted pneumoconiosis as a result. Adams' complaint named more than 400 co-plaintiffs, demanded "judgment" against all defendants "jointly, severally, and/or individually," and sought "a trial by jury on all issues so triable." Mounts' complaint named more than 300 co-plaintiffs and mirrored Adams' in substance. 3M removed the cases to federal court on CAFA, federal question, and diversity grounds. The district court remanded them to state court. 3M sought leave to appeal and the Sixth Circuit granted its petition for review. The Sixth Circuit states that as to the merits, CAFA in relevant part permits removal of any civil action in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact. In the case, all agree that the Adams and Mounts lawsuits qualify as civil actions and seek "monetary relief." That leaves one question: Have Adams and Mounts "proposed" to "try" claims of 100 or more persons jointly on the ground that the claims involve common questions of law or fact? The Sixth Circuit opines that the miners' complaints did just that. CAFA targets putative class actions and lawsuits that resemble them -- "mass actions" in short. Lawsuits like the miners' complaints fit the bill. They assert parallel claims on behalf of more than 100 plaintiffs, all proceeding on the theory that the claims are similar enough to merit adjudication in tandem. It should not come as a surprise that CAFA covers them. The miners respond that, under Kentucky or federal law, their cases may not ultimately involve common questions of law or fact. But at most this suggests they might have made an unwarranted proposal for a joint trial grounded on common questions. Still, an unwarranted proposal remains a proposal. Nor does it matter that a joint trial may never result, perhaps even on 3M's motion to bifurcate or sever. That possibility suggests that a Kentucky court might eventually decline a proposal for a joint trial, not that Adams or Mounts did not offer one. The miners add that their counsel sought individual rather than joint trials in a similar case. But that case is not this case. Here, Adams and Mounts each filed a complaint joining more than 100 co-plaintiffs and seeking "a" jury trial. Any "nonbinding" implication, suggestion, or even promise that they seek only individual trial does not defeat federal jurisdiction. Requiring district courts to divine counsels' unexpressed intentions and compare different cases' trial-management plans would be anything but. For similar reasons, the Sixth Circuit opines it does not matter that Adams' and Mounts' complaints sought judgment "jointly, severally, and/or individually" against the Defendants. That speaks to each defendant's liability on a judgment not to the presence of a joint trial demand. CAFA, moreover, leaves state courts plenty of room to operate. Plaintiffs may avoid removal by filing separate complaints naming less than 100 plaintiffs and by not moving for or otherwise proposing joint trial in the state court. In the alternative, Adams and Mounts urge the Sixth Circuit to affirm the remand order under CAFA's "local controversy" exception. But for the exception to apply, the miners must show that a Kentucky defendant's conduct "forms a significant basis for their claims. The miners, to be sure, add that Kentucky merchants sold the respirators, perhaps negligently or recklessly. But they have offered no reason for thinking that the merchants' liability is anything but derivative of 3M's liability. All told, the Sixth Circuit cannot conclude that this controversy is local. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/n5pcfvwp from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Michael A. Scodro -- mscodro@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for the Appellant. Michael B. Martin, MARTIN WALTON LAW FIRM, Friendswood, Texas, for the Appellees. ON BRIEF: Michael A. Scodro, MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Evan M. Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., Byron N. Miller -- bmiller@tmslawplc.com -- THOMPSON MILLER & SIMPSON PLC, Louisville, Kentucky, Bryant J. Spann -- BSpann@tcspllc.com -- THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, Charleston, West Virginia, Margaret Oertling Cupples -- mcupples@bradley.com -- James Stephen Fritz, Jr. -- sfritz@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Jackson, Mississippi, Scott Burnett Smith -- ssmith@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Huntsville, Alabama, Timothy Rodriguez -- trodriguez@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant. Michael B. Martin, MARTIN WALTON LAW FIRM, Friendswood, Texas, Johnny Givens -- johnny@givens-law.com -- GIVENS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Ridgeland, Mississippi, for the Appellees. John H. Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae. 3M COMPANY: AFDSNY Suit Removed to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Association of Fire Districts of the State of New York, East Fishkill Fire District, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The 3M Company agent of formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Arkema Inc.; Archroma U.S. Inc.; BASF Corporation, Individually; BASF Corporation, as successor in interest to Ciba Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; Chemdesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals, Inc.; Clariant Corporation, Individually; Clariant Corporation, as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; Corteva, Inc., individually; Corteva, Inc., as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; DuPont De Nemours Inc., individually; DuPont De Nemours Inc., as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Dynax Corporation; E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, individually; E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., individually; Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., as successor in interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam, Inc.; The Chemours Company, Individually; The Chemours Company, as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Individually; The Chemours Company FC, LLC, as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Tyco Fire Products, LP, Individually; Tyco Fire Products, LP, as successor in interest to The Ansul Company; Doe Defendants 1-20, fictitious names whose present identities are unknown; Case No. 2023-50895 was removed from the Supreme Court, County of Dutchess, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:23-cv-03329-CS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability. 3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and consumer goods.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicole G. McDonough, Esq. ARCHER & GREINER, P.C (NJ2) 21 Main Street, Suite 353 Court Plaza Souith East Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 342-6000 Fax: (201) 342-6611 Email: nmcdonough@archerlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Matthews Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Matthews, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01670-RMG (D.S.C., April 21, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with spindle cell sarcoma cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Myers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Myers, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01669-RMG (D.S.C., April 21, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Phipps Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Phipps, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01672-RMG (D.S.C., April 21, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 A-1 COLLECTION: Court Continues Stay of Merit Discovery in Fullmer ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FULLMER, JOSH BURT, SEAN MCINTYRE, SABRINA PROVO, On behalf of Plaintiffs and Class, v. A-1 COLLECTION AGENCY, LLC, and MOAB VALLEY HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00143-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Paul Kohler entered an order granting joint motion to continue stay of merit discovery until class certification is resolved. Once the Court adjudicates class certification, the Parties will meet and confer and submit a proposed scheduling order for merit discovery within 14 days of the order, the Court says. A-1 Collection Agency is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n0oEVR at no extra charge.[CC] ABC SIGNATURE: Court Vacates Class Cert Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ABC SIGNATURE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10; and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 2:22-cv-06628-SSS-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order vacating class certification motion briefing schedule and hearing date to allow mediation, and scheduling post-mediation status conference: ABC Signature is an American television production studio that is a subsidiary of Disney Television Studios. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oAf8sT at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Anderson Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson v. Advance Publications, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06826-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff seek leave to file anticipated motion for class certification. -- The Parties, Plaintiff's Claims, and the Proposed Class The Plaintiff Anderson is a former participant in the Advance 401(k) Plan, through which he invested in the BlackRock LifePath Index 2035 und during the relevant period. As of December 31, 2020, the Plan had 12,027 participants and assets totaling approximately $1.5 billion, making it one of the country's largest defined contribution plans. The Defendant is the Plan sponsor and a fiduciary charged with administering the Plan. The Plaintiff asserts Defendant's retention of the BlackRock TDFs was a breach of fiduciary duty. As Plaintiff's claim is based on Defendant's misconduct in managing and administering the Plan, and because Plaintiff seeks to recover losses on behalf of the Plan, this action is ideally suited for class treatment under Rule 23. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks certification of the following proposed class: "All participants and beneficiaries in the Advance 401(k) Plan who invested in the BlackRock LifePath Index target date funds at any time on or after August 10, 2016 and continuing to the date of judgment, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan invested in the BlackRock TDFs at any time during the Class Period." -- Class Certification is Proper Under Rule 23(a) For certification, an action must meet the four requirements of Rule 23(a) as well as those of at least one subsection of Rule 23(b). The requirements of Rule 23 should be interpreted liberally, with doubts resolved in favor of granting certification. Advance Publications is a privately-held American media company owned by Donald Newhouse and Samuel Irving Newhouse Jr. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N79mcA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna K. D’agostino, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: akdagostino@millershah.com AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 31 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMCARA, INC. d/b/a AST WATERJET, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-02264-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall complete class action Sept. 1, 2023 fact discovery by: 2. Counsel for each party shall serve upon Sept. 15, 2023 counsel for the opposing party the information referred to in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) by expert report or answer to expert interrogatory no later than: 3. Counsel shall serve any rebuttal reports Oct. 6, 2023 on counsel for the opposing party no later than: 4. The parties shall conclude expert Oct. 20, 2023 depositions, if any, no later than: 5. The plaintiff shall file a motion for Oct. 31, 2023; class certification and supporting brief by: 6. The defendant shall file a brief in Nov. 30, 2023 opposition to the motion for class certification by: 7. The plaintiff shall file a reply brief Dec. 21, 2023 in further support of its motion for class certification by: 8. The court will hold an oral argument Jan. 11, 2024 on the motion for class certification on: Air Products is an American international corporation whose principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial uses. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40wZ88n at no extra charge.[CC] ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to May 22 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Casa Libre Freedom House et al., v. Alejandro Mayorkas et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01510-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order granting the parties' joint stipulation to continue class certification hearings and trial. -- The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is continued to May 22, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. -- The hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment is continued to June 26, 2023 at 1:30 p.m., and briefing deadlines are correspondingly continued. Moreover, the Court orders that the following dates and deadlines shall supersede any dates and deadlines previously set in this matter: Jan. 19, 2024: Trial at 9:00 a.m. Jan. 12, 2024: Deadline to File Final Trial Exhibit Stipulation Jan. 8, 2024: Hearing on Motions in Limine at 1:30 p.m. Dec. 18, 2023: Deadline to File Oppositions to Motions in Limine Dec. 11, 2023: Final Pretrial Conference at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41xUjwL at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Must File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Qureshi v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01141 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Christopher R. Cooper entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file materials submitted with their motion for class certification under Seal. The nature of suit diversity-breach of contract. American University is a private federally chartered research university in Washington, D.C.[CC] AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Seeks to File Materials Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAAZ QURESHI, MATTHEW RABINOWITZ, and DANISH ARIF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01141-CRC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting them to file material in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Declaration of Blake G. Abbott with exhibits provisionally under seal. Based on the American's confidentiality designations, the Plaintiffs thus seek to (1) file under seal a provisionally redacted version of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and (2) file completely under seal the Declaration of Blake G. Abbott in Support of Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification, with exhibits that include excerpts from confidential deposition transcripts and documents American has produced during discovery that have been designated as confidential. American University is a private federally chartered research university in Washington, D.C. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LljZqT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: paul@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com - and - Michael Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: Mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Sarah Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami FL, 33131 Telephone: (305)-330-5512 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com - and - Curtis A. Boykin, Esq. Frederick A. Douglas, Esq. DOUGLAS & BOYKIN PLLC 1850 M Street NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 776-0370 E-mail: caboykin@douglasboykin.com fadouglas@douglasboykin.com AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAAZ QURESHI, MATTHEW RABINOWITZ, and DANISH ARIF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01141-CRC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following classes: -- Tuition Class "All undergraduate students enrolled in classes at American University during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition;" -- Fees Class "All undergraduate students enrolled in classes at American University during the Spring 2020 semester who paid fees;" The Plaintiffs contend that their claims readily satisfy the requirements for class certification. First, the proposed class is estimated to be approximately 8,000 undergraduate students, and therefore is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable. Second, common issues of fact and law predominate the claims of each member of the proposed class, rooted in Defendant's systemic failure to provide students with refunds for the curtailment of in-person services for the entire Spring 2020 semester that students contracted for. The Plaintiffs were students at American University during the Spring 2020 semester who were forced by American University to attend all of their Spring 2020 courses in an online format for approximately 50% of the Spring 2020 semester, despite enrolling and paying for in-person services. American University is a private federally chartered research university in Washington, D.C. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40wO3nG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: paul@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com - and - Michael Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: Mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Sarah Westcot, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami FL, 33131 Telephone: (305)-330-5512 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com - and - Curtis A. Boykin, Esq. Frederick A. Douglas, Esq. DOUGLAS & BOYKIN PLLC 1850 M Street NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 776-0370 E-mail: caboykin@douglasboykin.com fadouglas@douglasboykin.com ANGLICARE: New Class Action Seeks Accountability Over COVID Deaths ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Vidler at 9news.com.au reports that families who are part of the new class action against Anglicare and NSW Health just want accountability and an apology over the deaths at Newmarch House, a woman whose grandmother died from COVID-19 during the pandemic says. Nineteen people died at the Sydney nursing home during the coronavirus outbreak and the lawsuit alleges management practices at the time contributed to the toll. Nicole Fahey's grandmother Ann was a Newmarch resident and died aged 76. Fahey told A Current Affair last night that the family had not even been told Ann was unwell, let alone that she had COVID-19. "We are talking about a lot of these family members, you know, not being able to say goodbye," Fahey told Today. "They've gone into deep depressions. They can't work any more. They don't eat. They don't sleep." She said the lawsuit sought justice not just for the bereaved but for the dead. "There's nowhere elsewhere 19 people can die due to certain actions, and there not be consequences or there not be anyone held to account," she said. "So this is purely what these families are after. Justice." Class action leading lawyer Lisa Flynn said what took place at Newmarch "should never have happened". "We all know that it was an uncertain time and that death tragically became part of life, but the way that the outbreak was handled at Newmarch cost lives," Flynn said. "On top of that, the mishandling of the communication with family members, who were just so desperate for answers at the time, really compounded the grief that was caused by the loss of their loved ones." Fahey said for people like her father, Ann's son, they needed something as simple as an apology to live a "normal life". "No one wants anything out of this, except for accountability and respect for the 19 lives," she said. Anglicare and NSW Health have 28 days to lodge a defence to the class action allegations. In a statement, Anglicare said it had received the notice of the class action and "we will be defending ourselves when these claims reach a hearing". "We would hope that when that time comes, the NSW coroner will have handed down the findings into the cause of the outbreak and the cause of the passing of 19 people in our care," a spokesperson said. "Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families, friends and loved ones of those residents, but also with our staff who showed great compassion and service during a very difficult period. "Much has changed since the start of the pandemic and across the world there has been significant learning about the disease and its management. "We are continuing our learning and are committed to remaining vigilant in looking after those in our care." [GN] APPLE INC: Court Dismisses w/o Prejudice Barrett's Claims --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL BARRETT, et al., v. APPLE INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-04812-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Plaintiff Carl Barrett Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(A)(2), as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Carl Barrett's claims are dismissed without prejudice; and 2. The parties are referred to Judge DeMarchi for resolution of the violation of the March 13, 2023, Order in this action. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Mr. Barrett from this action, and will not condition the dismissal on prior compliance with Judge DeMarchi's Order. Mr. Barrett is already in violation of both the deposition and written discovery prongs of the Order, and the dismissal does not protect Mr. Barrett from the consequences of his non-compliance. The Court therefore refers the resolution of any remaining discovery disputes and/or related sanctions to Judge DeMarchi. Five putative class representatives remain in this action and the parties have indicated that the case will move forward with mediation and class certification briefing. There has been no excessive delay, and a dismissal without prejudice does not render futile the efforts of the parties to date. Carl Barrett, Eric Marinbach, Nancy Martin, Michel Polston, Michael Rodriguez, Maria Rodriguez, and Douglas Watson filed this putative class action against the Defendants on July 17, 2020. Apple is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AqP6uV at no extra charge.[CC] ARTIPHON INC: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Artiphon, Inc. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Artiphon, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03238 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Artiphon -- https://artiphon.com/ -- designs smart instruments for the next billion musicians by combining hardware, software, and shareable content that anyone can play.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal AUDIBLE INC: Sealing of Confidential Info Temporarily OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Audible, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order temporarily granting the motion to seal or redact two types of confidential information: (1) documents or information that contain sensitive business information, or information that could cause competitive harm; and (2) personal information of non‐parties that does not bear on Plaintiffs' motions. The Court says that in certain documents, personally identifiable information about third parties and unrelated individuals was redacted when these documents were produced. Audible seeks to maintain these redactions, as these individuals' identities are unrelated to Plaintiffs' motions." Audible is an American online audiobook and podcast service that allows users to purchase and stream audiobooks and other forms of spoken word content. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LoctLS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brian D. Buckley, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 1191 Second Avenue, 10th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-4515 E-mail: BBuckley@fenwick.com AURORA BEHAVIORAL: Martin Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Deborah Martin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. AURORA BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE SANTA ROSE, LLC, a California Corporation dba SANTA ROSA BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE HOSPITAL; SIGNATURE HEALTHCRE SERVICES, LLC, a Michigan corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. SCV-272369 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01891-TSH. The Complaint alleges 11 causes of action, both on behalf of Plaintiff individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees: Failure to Pay Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Pay All Accrued and Vested Vacation/PTO Wages; Failure to Provide Sick Pay; Failure to Indemnify; Failure to Timely Pay Earned Wages During Employment; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Ward, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418 Phone: 213.972.4500 Facsimile: 213.486.0065 Email: cward@foley.com - and - Kevin Jackson, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130-2594 Phone: 858.847.6700 Facsimile: 858.792.6773 Email: kjackson@foley.com BENESYS INC: Campa Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN CAMPA, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated retirees, Plaintiff v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SHEET METAL WORKERS PENSION PLAN OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; BENESYS, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01760 (E.D. Cal., April 12, 2023) seeks redress for Defendants Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Plan of Northern California's and Benesys, Inc.'s breaches of fiduciary duty with respect to the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Plan of Northern California in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to administer the Plan in accordance with its terms in approving Plaintiff Stephen Campa's, and a class of similarly situated retirees, application for unreduced early retirement benefits from the Plan. This breach caused Plaintiff to retire in 2018 on the expectation that he would receive an unreduced early retirement pension for the remainder of his life. If Defendants had not approved Plaintiff's application for an unreduced early retirement pension, he would not have retired in 2018; instead he would have kept working in order to meet the eligibility requirements for an unreduced pension, says the suit. In 2022, Defendants became aware of their failure to administer the Plan in accordance with its terms and determined that Plaintiff's pension benefits had been overpaid, and sent Plaintiff a letter demanding repayment of $19,440 in pension benefits along with a notification that his benefits would be reduced going forward by $432 per month, and then reduced his benefits by an additional $120.35 per month to recover the overpayment, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Campa worked as a sheet metal worker for the entirety of his career. He retired at age 59 with 20.25 vesting service credits in the Plan on January 1, 2019. Benesys, Inc. provides fund trust administration and information technology services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Keenley, Esq. Emily A. Bolt, Esq. Brian H. Kim, Esq. BOLT KEENLEY KIM LLP 2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite 517 Berkeley, CA 94705 Telephone: (510) 225-0696 Facsimile: (510) 225-1095 BON APPETIT: Nordman Suit Remanded to San Mateo County Super. Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JULIE NORDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-00703-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion to remand this matter to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. Plaintiffs Julie Nordman and Linda Peppars filed the putative wage and hour class action lawsuit against Defendants Bon Appetit Management Co. ("BAMCO") and Compass Group USA, Inc. BAMCO removed the case, asserting that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempts the Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs now move to remand the case to state court. The Defendants oppose. The Defendants offer food-service management to corporations, universities, museums, and specialty venues, including Oracle Park and Chase Center in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiffs have worked as concession workers for the Defendants at Oracle Park and Chase Center since 2018. The Plaintiffs are union members of UNITE HERE Local 2. BAMCO and the Union negotiated collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") on behalf of BAMCO's hourly, non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have committed numerous wage abuses against hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, including by failing to pay all wages owed, permit timely and duty-free meal periods and rest periods, reimburse business-related expenses, timely pay wages upon termination, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and by withholding tips and gratuities. The Plaintiffs originally filed the putative wage and hour class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo on Jan. 17, 2023. They assert eight claims for violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code: (1) Failure to Pay Wages Owed For All Time Worked (Cal. Labor Code Sections 204,4 510, 1194, 1197, and 1198); (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Meal Period Premiums (Cal. Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a)); (3) Failure to Provide Rest Periods and Pay Rest Period Premiums (Cal. Labor Code Section 226.7); (4) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages (Cal. Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203); (5) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements (Cal. Labor Section 226(a)); (6) Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses (Cal. Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802); (7) Conversion; and (8) Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.). On Feb. 16, 2023, BAMCO removed the action, asserting that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 185 ("LMRA") preempts the Plaintiffs' state law claims and creates federal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs move to remand the case to California state court. They contend that none of their claims for violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code require interpretation of the CBAs and therefore are not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. First, Judge Ryu holds that because the CBAs do not provide a minimum hourly rate of not less than 30% more than the state minimum for all covered employees between 2019 and the present, the Plaintiffs' overtime claim does not exist solely as a result of the CBAs and the claim is not preempted at step one of the LMRA preemption test. Second, Judge Ryu holds that the Defendants fail to explain how the Plaintiffs' overtime claims would require the Court to interpret the CBAs as opposed to merely look to the CBAs to determine applicable standards. Crucially, they do not point to any dispute over the meaning of any term in the CBAs. As the Defendants have failed to carry their burden, the Plaintiff's overtime claim is not preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. Third, Judge Ryu finds that the parties dispute whether the CBAs guarantee that all covered employees receive a regular hourly pay rate that is at least 30% more than the state minimum wage. For the reasons previously set forth in the discussion of section 514, she holds the Defendants fail to meet their burden to establish that the Plaintiffs' meal period claims are exempted by section 512(e). Those claims are therefore not preempted at the first step of the preemption test. The Defendants do not address the second prong of the Burnside test as to the Plaintiffs' meal period claims and thereby concede the issue. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' meal period claims are not preempted by section 301. Fourth, Judge Ryu says the fact that the parties may refer to the CBAs' provisions to calculate the amount of gratuities owed to each employee does not result in preemption. Thus, the Plaintiffs' conversion claim is not preempted by section 301. Fifth, Judge Ryu determines that the existence of grievance and arbitration procedures in the CBAs does not lead to federal preemption unless the litigation waiver is "clear and unmistakable" and directly references the relevant statutes at issue. Preemption is not implicated because the CBAs do not reference the statutory rights at issue. In addition, even if the Plaintiff's claims may be subject to the grievance procedure, this argument constitutes a defensive use of the CBA, which, under clearly established law, cannot create a federal question. Finally, because she finds that the LMRA does not preempt any of the Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Ryu holds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo is granted. BAMCO's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ms928nyj from Leagle.com. BOYNE USA: Class Action Cert Opening Briefs Set for May 3 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, ROBERT AND NORA ERHART, and TJARDA CLAGETT, v. BOYNE USA, INC., BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC., AND SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered a scheduling order as follows: Class action certification opening briefs shall be filed on or before: May 3, 2023 Class action response briefs shall be filed on or before: May 23, 2023 Class action reply briefs shall be filed on or before: May 30, 2023 All parties shall disclose liability experts on or before: Sept. 15, 2023 The Parties are advised that revised Local Rules for the District of Montana became effective December 1, 2022, and apply in all cases pending when changes become effective. In addition, all counsel shall take steps to register in the Court's electronic filing system. All counsel must show cause if they are not filing electronically. Further information is available on the Court's website, www.mtd.uscourts.gov, or from the Clerk's Office. Boyne owns and operates mountain resorts. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NaGosa at no extra charge.[CC] BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Bid Granted; Dobbs Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TERESA ANN DOBBS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: D (4), Civil Action No. 17-3152 (E.D. La.), Judge Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.; b. grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; c. denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Admission of Plaintiffs' [sic] Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure; and d. dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants. Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both motions. Also before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Spoliation Motion. The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. Dobbs opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed this individual action against the Defendants on April 11, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the oil spill. For approximately seven months in 2010, she worked as a beach cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas near Gulfport, Biloxi, Long Beach, Pass Christian, and Cat Island, Mississippi. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused her to suffer myriad injuries including headaches, memory loss, dizziness, GERD, abdominal pains, sinus problems, rhinitis, chemically induced RADS, rash, skin irritation, eye irritation, and burning eyes. Specifically, she seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. To help support her claims that exposure to the chemicals present in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused her particular health symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather, his generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as well as in other cases before its other sections. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation and not to specific causation. The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for Summary Judgment on Feb. 14, 2023. In their Motion in limine, they contend that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying due to, inter alia, his failure to identify the harmful level of exposure capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each chemical that she alleges to have been exposed to. Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit precedent. In response, the Plaintiff argues that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore, that summary judgment is inappropriate. She also filed a Spoliation Motion, in which she argues that Dr. Cook's Report and general causation opinions should be deemed reliable and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because of BP's alleged failure to collect exposure data on oil spill cleanup workers. The Plaintiff argues that BP had an obligation to preserve evidence that it reasonably anticipated may have been relevant to future litigation and that BP intentionally destroyed said evidence in bad faith. The Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiff's Spoliation Motion, arguing that she cannot demonstrate spoliation of evidence because there never was evidence to spoliate in the first place. They also contend that the issue of biological monitoring of cleanup workers is irrelevant to the reliability and admissibility of Dr. Cook's Report. Finally, the Defendants argue that the remedy sought by the Plaintiff -- admission of Dr. Cook's Report -- is inappropriate and without basis. First, Judge Vitter holds that the Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered by the Plaintiff, finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same reasons set forth in detail in that Order and Reasons, she determines that the Plaintiff has failed in her burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of her expert's report and grants the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude Dr. Cook's Report. Next, Judge Vitter holds that to properly assert a spoliation claim, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) the Defendants controlled the evidence and were obliged to preserve it at the time of destruction; (2) the Defendants intentionally destroyed the evidence; and (3) the Defendants acted in bad faith. The Plaintiff fails to make this showing. She does not point to any actual evidence allegedly spoiled by the Defendants. Because she finds no merit to the Plaintiff's Motion, Judge Vitter denies the Plaintiff's Spoliation. Lastly, Judge Vitter holds that for the reasons she described, the Plaintiff lacks expert testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general causation, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her claims that her injuries were caused by exposure to oil. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation. The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtw8k2hj from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Bid Granted; Dumas' Claims Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DAVID DUMAS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: D (1), Civil Action No. 17-3160 (E.D. La.), Judge Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.; b. grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and c. denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Admission of Plaintiffs' Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure. Before the Court is BP's Motion in limine as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both motions. Also before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Spoliation Motion. The Defendants oppose this Motion. The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. Dumas opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed this individual action against the Defendants on April 11, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the oil spill. For approximately one month in 2010, he worked as a decontamination worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the oil booms near the beaches and coastal areas of Lafourche Parish and New Orleans, Louisiana. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused him to suffer myriad injuries including chest pain, eye pain and irritation, dizziness, fainting, earache, sore throat, cough, chronic sinusitis, nosebleed, shortness of breath, wheezing, rash, boils, dryness/flaking, inflammation, redness, or swelling, itching, peeling, chronic post-traumatic headache, chronic nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and vomiting. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to recover economic damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr. Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court as well as in other cases before its other sections. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation and not to specific causation. The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for Summary Judgment on Feb. 14, 2023. In their Motion in limine, the Defendants contend that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying due to, inter alia, his failure to identify the harmful level of exposure capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each chemical that the Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to. Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, they argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit precedent. In response, the Plaintiff argues that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore, that summary judgment is inappropriate. He also filed a Motion for Admission of Plaintiffs' Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure, in which he argues that Dr. Cook's Report and general causation opinions should be deemed reliable and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because of BP's alleged failure to collect exposure data on oil spill cleanup workers. The Plaintiff argues that BP had an obligation to preserve evidence that it reasonably anticipated may have been relevant to future litigation and that BP intentionally destroyed said evidence in bad faith. The Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiff's spoliation Motion, arguing that he cannot demonstrate spoliation of evidence because there never was evidence to spoliate in the first place. They also contend that the issue of biological monitoring of cleanup workers is irrelevant to the reliability and admissibility of Dr. Cook's Report. Finally, they argue that the remedy sought by the Plaintiff -- admission of Dr. Cook's Report -- is inappropriate and without basis. First, Judge Vitter holds that the Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered by the Plaintiff, finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same reasons set forth in detail in that Order and Reasons, she determines that the Plaintiff has failed in his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of his expert's report and finds it appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude Dr. Cook's Report. Next, Judge Vitter holds that to properly assert a spoliation claim, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) the Defendants controlled the evidence and were obliged to preserve it at the time of destruction; (2) the Defendants intentionally destroyed the evidence; and (3) the Defendants acted in bad faith. She finds that the Plaintiff fails to make this showing. Because she finds no merit to the Plaintiff's Motion, Judge Vitter denies the Spoliation Motion. Lastly, for the reasons she described, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff lacks expert testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general causation, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his claims that his injuries were caused by exposure to oil. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation. The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/43ddc4hr from Leagle.com. BROADCAST SUPPLY: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broadcast Supply Worldwide, Inc. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Broadcast Supply Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03239 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Broadcast Supply Worldwide -- https://www.bswusa.com/ -- provides the lowest prices available on equipment for Radio Broadcasting and Audio Recording.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal CALIFORNIA NATURAL: Devendra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Natural Products. The case is styled as Moses Devendra, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. California Natural Products, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0003913 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 18, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." California Natural Products (CNP) -- http://www.cnp.com/-- is a packager of of dairy-based and dairy alternative beverages, soups, broths, teas, nutritional drinks, and wine and spirits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 CANADA: Indigenous Members Sue Over Harmful Dental Work ------------------------------------------------------- ctvnews.ca reports that a potential future class action lawsuit is shedding more light on the impacts of the dentistry work performed under the former Indian Affairs Canada between the 1960s and 1980s. The suit is currently in its early stages but is being facilitated by the Band Members of the Advocacy Alliance Association of Canada (BMAAAC). It is expected to allege substandard and harmful dental work which took place in the 30 to 40-year period by Indian Affairs, the former Indigenous Services Canada linked to a "travelling dentist," who went from community to community practicing on youth who did not provide consent. Based on stories heard by BMAAAC president and founder Rob Louie, the impacts are vast. "It certainly was disheartening to hear some of the stories being told by elderly people now, because [they] were young children back in the 1960s and 70s. So not only did they go through residential schools, not only do they go through, you know, the 60s scoop and the abuse that went along with it. Now they're dealing with some of their self-esteem issues," he told CTV News. "Some of these stories that we've heard include having teeth removed without any freezing and some of the harms that went around that followed folks right into adulthood and some of the members that we've talked to, they have very poor teeth and that is a result of not wanting to go to a dentist after their experience as a child," Louie said. CTV News released an exclusive story on the potential class action on April 5. Indigenous Services Canada responded to an April 4 request for a statement from Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) but did not receive a response until one week later, April 11. "We cannot comment about potential or proposed legal actions which have not been filed," the statement read. "The Government of Canada remains committed to working with Indigenous partners to advance reconciliation, dismantle a colonial legacy of racism, broken promises and denial of rights and build renewed and transformed relationships together," the statement also read. ISC itself has commissioned a project with the Saskatchewan-based organization, the Indigenous Dental Association of Canada (IDAC). That's according to founder Dr. Sheri McKinstry, who launched the organization in 2021. McKinstry told CTV News that during findings of potential unmarked graves near former residential schools, that she was impacted to create the project which looks at survivors of the trauma and collects their testimonies throughout the province. "When we started IDAC I had so many people come forward and share their absolutely horrible experiences. And even when we were preparing IDAC, the physical location after we had the furniture in we asked some elders to come in and smudge our areas and then do a ceremony so that we can do it all in a good way," she explained. "They're not necessarily old stories [IDAC hears]. These are even newer stories. Where just absolute horrible things have been done and a lot of it has to do with consent. A lot of it has to do with, unfortunately, I have to say, financial motivation." McKinstry's journey through the project isn't one she takes lightly. The advocate said she too experienced traumatic impacts when going through ISC dentists when she was a child. "It wasn't until I became a dentist actually, to be honest with you, that I realized that had been done to me and I didn't even realize that was a form of abuse that was done to me in the chair," she said. "We definitely need a change in dentistry. We need to do it in a good way. But we also need to listen to the voices that need to be heard. And so this is where that project is coming from, I think those that are speaking out really need to be supported in this because the voices need to be heard." McKinstry said in her eyes, there is hope for the future in the way of potential ceremonies and creating ceremony-friendly dentistry, to ease the traumas of the past for Indigenous clients. It's something she has pushed for hoping to one day have it in her own dentist's office. The IDAC facility in Saskatoon is smudge-friendly, according to McKinstry and it has helped elders share their stories on their own healing paths. The class action lawsuit expects to reach around 10,000 Indigenous members throughout the province, according to early estimations by Louie. He said currently those in the Metis community and the Inuit population may not be eligible to join the suit against ISC. Louie said the Calgary-based law firm DD West will be taking the case, with hopes of filing the suit this fall. When it comes to the "travelling dentist," Louie said there are conflicting reports that the individual may or may not still be alive, but would be in his "80s or 90s" if he is. Louie added that he plans to travel across the province to meet with First Nations interested in joining the class action, but those interested can contact BMAAC directly at BMAAAC.org.[GN] CASPER SLEEP: Tate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Casper Sleep, Inc. The case is styled as Anjolie Tate, on behalf of the State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. Casper Sleep, Inc., Case No. 23CV031523 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 18, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Casper Sleep -- https://casper.com/ -- is an e-commerce company that sells sleep products online and in retail locations.[BN] CENTIMARK CORP: Bids for Class Certification Due April 25, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Lingle, v. Centimark Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01471-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Any further amended complaint must be filed within 21 days. -- Initial disclosures must be exchanged within 45 days. -- Fact discovery related to class certification shall be completed by October 4, 2024. -- Initial expert disclosures related to class certification shall be exchanged by November 1, 2024. -- Rebuttal expert disclosures related to class certification shall be exchanged by December 6, 2024. -- All expert discovery related to class certification shall be completed by January 17, 2025. -- Any motions for class certification or to preclude class certification must be heard by April 25, 2025. -- The court will set further dates and deadlines following motion practice on class certification. The Plaintiff Anthony Lingle asserts several wage and hour claims against his former employer, defendant Centimark Corporation, and he seeks to represent a class of similarly situated workers. Centimark moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike under Rule 12(f). The court converts the motion to strike to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). So construed, the motions are granted in part with leave to amend. At this stage, the court assumes the allegations in Lingle's complaint are true. 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 40 hours a week, often as many as 12-14 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. CentiMark is a national roofing contractor company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40zuNpw at no extra charge.[CC] CHSPSC LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ABELINO RIVERA, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHSPSC, LLC d/b/a COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00336-DLM-GBW (D.N.M., April 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendant's auto-deduction policy violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Abelino Rivera was employed as a respiratory therapist at CHS's Mountainview Regional Medical Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico from approximately February 2019 until February 2021. He regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but the Defendant did not pay him for all the hours he worked. Instead, the Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from his work time for so-called meal breaks, depriving him of premium overtime wages for all overtime hours worked, says the Plaintiff. CHS claims as one of the nation's healthcare providers developing and operating healthcare delivery systems in 44 distinct markets across 15 states, including in New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, 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 CLUB 360: Golan Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARAK GOLAN, individually and on behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CLUB 360 LLC; ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; JEHANGIR MEHER; VALLEY GYM CORP.; NORTH HOLLYWOOD FITNESS LLC; VAN NUYS FITNESS CENTER LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of themCase No. 2:21-cv-02272-CBM-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class Certification against the Defendants. In particular, the Plaintiff Golan seeks class certification under Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the following class (the "EFTA Class") against Defendants ABC and Meher for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA): "All persons in the United States whose bank accounts were debited on a reoccurring basis by Meher or ABC without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers in March 14, 2020 to September 2020 for fees at any of the USA Fitness gyms." The Plaintiff Golan also seeks to certify a subclass (the EFTA Club360 Subclass) against Defendants Club 360, Meher, and ABC consisting of: "All persons in the United States whose bank accounts were debited on a reoccurring basis by Club 360, Meher, or ABC without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers in March 14, 2020 to September 2020 for fees at Club 360's gyms." The Plaintiff Golan also seeks to certify a subclass (the EFTA USA Fitness Subclass) against all Defendants consisting of: "All persons in the United States whose bank accounts were debited on a reoccurring basis by Defendants without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers after June 15, 2020 to September 2020 for fees at any of the USA Fitness gyms." The Plaintiff will also move the Court for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative and for appointment of Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41xIoPI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com CORNERSTONE TRADING: Sued Over Fire's Adverse Health Effects ------------------------------------------------------------ Kara Kenney at wrtv.com reports that two Richmond residents and a business have filed a class action lawsuit against the owner of a plastic recycling facility that caught fire earlier this month. Tushawn Craig, Marquetta Stokes, and Limitless Pallets all own property that was part of the evacuation zone of the April 11 fire, records show. On April 20, they filed a class action lawsuit against the property owners, Seth Smith and Cornerstone Trading Group. Recent Stories from wrtv.com As WRTV Investigates reported, the city cited Smith and Cornerstone Trading following a 2019 inspection that found fire hazards. The lawsuit alleges Smith and Cornerstone Trading were negligent by failing to address "ultra-hazardous conditions" within the facility. As a result, 2,000 people had to evacuate their homes as a result of the fire, the lawsuit read. "Numerous potential plaintiffs experienced adverse health events including, but not limited to inhalation of noxious gasses and smoke, breathing complications, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, and chest pain resulting in the need for medical care and causing great physical, emotion, and psychological pain and suffering," read the lawsuit filed April 20. People who lived near the fire were unable to go to work and lost income, and businesses were forced to close which diminished profits, the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit also alleges the fire caused "severe emotional distress" and that class members feared for their health and safety as chemicals, fumes, debris and asbestos were released from the fire. Tushawn Craig, Marquetta Stokes, and Limitless Pallets are represented by Carmel law firm Crossen Law Firm LLC and Richmond attorney Benjamin Felton. They're asking a Wayne County court for $25,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as reasonable attorneys fees. They're also asking a judge to certify the lawsuit as a class action. Attorneys estimate there could be potentially 2,000 class members, which includes residents forced to evacuate as a result of the massive fire. WRTV Investigates stopped by Seth Smith's home address in Union County on April 12, but we couldn't get far because of a no trespassing sign. [GN] CREDIT SUISSE: S.D.N.Y. Dismisses Gomez Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- jdsupra.com reports that on March 31, 2023, Judge John P. Cronan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a financial institution that offered certain Exchange Traded Notes (the "ETN") linked to a natural gas price index. Gomez v. Credit Suisse AG, No. 22 Civ. 115 (JPC) (BCM), 2023 WL 2744415 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023). Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to adequately disclose the risk of a "short squeeze" (in which short sellers are forced to sell their positions at a loss due to rising prices of the underlying securities), and further that it engaged in a manipulative scheme when it announced that it was suspending the issuance of and delisting the ETN. The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege an actionable misrepresentation and failed to establish scienter or scheme liability. The Court granted leave for plaintiff to file an amended complaint but emphasized that plaintiff should only do so if she could remedy the many pleading deficiencies identified in the Court's decision. The Court initially observed that the offering materials for the ETN in fact broadly cautioned that: (i) only sophisticated investors should transact in the ETN, which was leveraged and designed to be held for less than one day; (ii) while the ETN was designed to track the performance of an index, the price of the ETN could diverge from the index and would also reflect supply and demand for the ETN itself; and (iii) defendant had the discretion to suspend the issuance of the ETN or delist it, which could cause an imbalance in supply and demand with potentially unpredictable effects. Id. at *2–3. Defendant also regularly disclosed its own holdings of the ETN in its SEC filings, which reflected that it held more shares in its inventory than were outstanding on the market. Id. at *4. When defendant announced that it intended to delist the ETN, it further cautioned that this decision could affect the market value of ETN through the time of its delisting. Id. With respect to plaintiff's allegations that defendant's press release announcing the suspension and delisting failed to adequately disclose the risk of a short squeeze, the Court explained that the offering materials for the ETN warned of that specific risk. Id. at *8. The Court also emphasized that "the Offering Documents repeatedly made clear, sometimes with bold for emphasis, that the trading price for the ETNs may at any time vary significantly from the Indicative Value." Id. at *9. While plaintiff argued that more detailed warnings about a potential short squeeze should have been disclosed, the Court rejected that contention, explaining that "the securities laws do not require issuers to predict the precise manner in which disclosed risks will manifest themselves." Id. The Court also noted that plaintiff did not allege that defendant did anything to alter the supply of ETNs in the market after the press release (id.), and plaintiff also did not allege that short squeezes always occur in the event of a delisting—and that, in fact, the complaint alleged that delisting of another ETN had the opposite effect on market prices (id. at *10). Moreover, the Court observed that the risk of a short squeeze in the particular ETN at issue had been reported in publicly available sources as early as 2019. Id. The Court also rejected plaintiff's claim that defendant had engaged in market manipulation by delisting the ETN. Id. at *12. The Court held that the complaint "does not even allege that [d]efendant in fact manipulated the market for [the ETN], let alone facts to plausibly support an inference of such manipulation." Id. at *11. The Court emphasized that defendant had warned investors that it had the discretion to suspend the ETN and that doing so could adversely affect supply and demand and cause prices to rise. Thus, the Court held that the delisting "was neither manipulative nor deceptive." Id. Moreover, the Court held that the complaint "contains nowhere near enough details to properly allege the who, what, when, where and why of the [alleged] fraudulent scheme." Id. Finally, the Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege scienter under either a "motive and opportunity" theory or "strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness." Id. While plaintiff contended that defendant had a financial motive to delist the ETN, the Court concluded that "it would be a stretch to impute a motive to defraud investors of roughly $135,000 to a company the size of [defendant], especially when the Complaint lacks any detail whatsoever as to who at [defendant] was involved." Id. at *13. Moreover, the Court observed that defendant could have made more money by selling its own holdings into the short squeeze, which made an inference of scienter "even less plausible." Id. Further, the Court noted that defendant earned investor fees on outstanding ETNs and could have earned more from such fees by keeping the ETN open than by delisting it. Id. In addition, the Court rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant behaved recklessly because it possessed unique facts suggesting a short squeeze was imminent, as plaintiff failed to allege which of defendant's employees allegedly possessed such information. Id. at *14. The Court also emphasized that defendant decided to delist not only the ETN at issue but also a number of other ETNs and took steps to give investors time to cover their short positions, as well as providing clear warnings of the impact of these decisions. [GN] DONOTPAY INC: Lee Sues Over Automatic Renewal Scheme ---------------------------------------------------- SANGSHIN LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DONOTPAY, INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02968 (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendant DoNotPay, Inc. has engaged in unlawful and deceptive business practices harming California consumers and the general public in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act, and California's Automatic Renewal Law. The Plaintiff and other consumers paid Defendant to use its services, reasonably expecting to pay the advertised one-time payment of $36. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other consumers, Defendant engages in a fraudulent payment scheme whereby it: automatically charges consumers $36 on a recurring basis without their knowledge or affirmative consent; fails to clearly convey its auto-renewal terms to consumers for its services and fails to send confirmation of these terms in an email or other communication; and fails to provide a clear or conspicuous method of cancellation on its website, says the Plaintiff. DoNotPay, Inc. claims to be the "World's First Robot Lawyer," offering consumers various legal services generated through Artificial Intelligence software. These services include purportedly helping consumers fight parking tickets, drafting defamation letters, fighting medical fraud, and canceling free online trial subscriptions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. Ryan D. Ardi, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com rardi@clarksonlawfirm.com DRESSER LLC: Class Certification Bid Deadline Extended in Barnes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB BARNES, ET AL., MICHELLE BARTON, ET AL, v. DRESSER, LLC, ET AL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00263-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge David C. Joseph entered an order granting the expedited joint motion to extend deadline on motion for class certification. -- All deadlines related to class certification be extended for 30 days in the Barnes, et al v. Dresser, et al, Case No.1:21-cv- 0024 and Barton, et al v. Dresser, et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-00263 matters. Dresser designs, manufactures, and markets energy infrastructure products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4408ufF at no extra charge.[CC] ECOMLT LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecomlt, LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Ecomlt, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03236 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ECOMLT LLC -- https://ecomlt-company.com/ -- is an innovative direct-to-consumer online retail company that develops and sells it's own private brand products in three main verticals - Household; Beauty and wellness; and Electronic devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com EQONEX LIMITED: Freedman Normand Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Freedman Normand Friedland LLP ("FNF") announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Eqonex Limited ("Eqonex" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EQOS), Binance Group ("Binance"), Bifinity UAB, certain Eqonex officers and directors, and Binance's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") ("Defendants") asserting claims under Sec 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and/or Sec 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. The action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and docketed under 23-cv-03346 is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Eqonex securities between March 7, 2022 and November 29, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") and/or unregistered EQO securities between April 8, 2021 and the present (the "Unregistered Securities Class Period") and were damaged by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. If you are a shareholder who purchased Eqonex and/or unregistered EQO securities during the relevant class period, you have until June 19, 2023 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. To discuss this action and/or obtain a copy of the Complaint, contact Ivy T. Ngo at ingo@fnf.law or 646-392-8842. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Eqonex (formerly Diginex Limited) was a Singapore-domiciled digital assets financial services company which operated four business lines: Custody, Asset Management, Brokerage, and the Eqonex Exchange (the "Exchange"). Notably, the Custody business was composed of Digivault, a stand-alone digital asset custodian based in the United Kingdom ("U.K.") which was the first one to be registered with U.K. Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA"), and the Exchange business facilitated the trading of products in BTC, ETH, BCH, USDC, USDT and EQONEX's alleged utility token known as EQO through a purportedly "compliant, secure, fair, and equitable platform." On March 7, 2022, Eqonex announced a "strategic partnership" with Bifinity, a payments technology company affiliated with Binance and launched that same day, which initially focused on leveraging "Digivault as an FCA regulated custodian, strengthening the technology supporting the Eqonex Exchange, and expanding Bifinity's geographical footprint through Eqonex's licensing framework." In addition, the two companies announced that they "will continue to engage in non-binding discussions to explore potential merger opportunities, subject to regulatory approval[,]" and "explore opportunities to grow EQONEX's digital asset investment solutions business." Under the partnership, Bifinity issued Eqonex a $36 million convertible loan facility (the "Loan") in exchange for a right to appoint from within Bifinity, Eqonex's CEO, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Legal Officer, as well as two members for Eqonex's board. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Defendants were not interested in leveraging the Exchange or deploying resources to strengthen that technology; (2) Eqonex had no way of paying Bifinity back pursuant to the Loan Agreement; (3) Bifinity and Binance had no intention of consummating a merger between Eqonex and Bifinity or Binance; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 15, 2022, Eqonex announced plans to exit the crypto exchange space, close the Exchange, and focus its resources on its Asset Management and Custody businesses. Despite the Exchange accounting for 79.9% of the Company's revenues in the financial year ending March 31, 2022, Defendants assured investors that day that "proactively exiting the crowded exchange space is the right decision to deliver shareholder value" and "[o]ur Asset Management and Custody business, Digivault, have already made solid progress with the additional resources that we have allocated to them recently, and we are bullish about their prospects as we become an organization focused on these high-potential business areas." That same day, in connection with the Exchange closing and in accordance with the Loan agreement, Bifinity granted Eqonex a waiver for the cessation of a major business and Eqonex agreed to increase its share charge of Digivault under the loan agreement from 24.9% to 100%. On this news, Eqonex's share price fell over 18% to close at $0.637 on August 17, 2022. Then, on November 21, 2022, Eqonex disclosed that it was "currently in breach of certain provisions of the Loan Agreement and consequently seeking a waiver from Bifinity on such breaches" and "[b]ased on the working capital forecast prepared by management of the [Company], the financial resources available to the [Company] as of March 31, 2022 and up to [November 21, 2022] may not be sufficient to satisfy the working capital requirements of the [Company] for a period of twelve months from th[at] date … which may cast significant doubt on the Group's ability to continue as a going concern." On this news, Eqonex's share price plummeted over 48% to close at $0.141 on November 22, 2022. Finally, before markets opened on November 29, 2022, Eqonex announced receipt of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC ("NASDAQ")'s Listing Qualifications department's determination that the Company's securities will be delisted from NASDAQ and that trading in those securities will be suspended at the opening of business on November 30, 2022. On this news, Eqonex's share price fell over 34% to close at $0.093 on November 29, 2022. About Freedman Normand Founded in 2019, FNF is a national law firm comprised of innovative and tech savvy attorneys with stellar credentials. With experience from some of the most prestigious litigation firms in the country, FNF's legal team has a successful and decades-long track record of consistently achieving outstanding results in high-stakes and notable disputes on behalf of sophisticated clients. FNF's legal team has extensive experience litigating complex commercial securities, antitrust, class action and derivative matters on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants in a broad range of industries. FNF couples a unique brand of creative thinking and technical expertise with well-balanced aggressive advocacy to achieve impressive results in complex, high value, and class action matters. As the firm continues to grow, it has focused on building a diverse attorney pool with cross-functional expertise. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Defeats Consumers' Class Suit Appeal Over F-150 Trucks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that Ford Motor Co (F.N) defeated an appeal by consumers who said the automaker cheated on fuel economy tests for its F-150 and Ranger trucks, allowing it to inflate mileage estimates on window stickers. In a 3-0 decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said federal law gave the Environmental Protection Agency authority to estimate vehicle fuel economy, preempting the plaintiffs' state law-based claims. Ford's F-series has been the best-selling American truck for 46 straight years. The proposed class action covered 2018-2020 model year F-150s, and 2019-2020 model year Rangers. Ford was accused of misleading the EPA by intentionally miscalculating factors used in certification testing. The plaintiffs said this led the EPA to overestimate fuel economy by as much as 15%, inducing them to overpay for their trucks and resulting in extra fuel costs. Circuit Judge Richard Griffin, however, said federal law provided standards for the EPA's estimates, and the estimates did not need to be strictly accurate. He also said the EPA had "significant authority" to investigate and deter fraud. "State-law tort claims, like plaintiffs', would skew this balance and permit juries to take the EPA's place in determining whether fuel economy estimates are reasonable," Griffin wrote. The decision upheld a February 2022 ruling by Chief Judge Sean Cox in federal court in Detroit. "This is a horrible result for consumers," Steve Berman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email. "This is dead against Supreme Court precedent that gives states the right to regulate deceptive conduct." Ford said in a statement it was pleased the court concluded that consumers can rely on the EPA's testing process and data. In February 2021, the Dearborn, Michigan-based automaker said the U.S. Department of Justice had closed a criminal probe into its fuel economy and emissions certification process without taking action. The case is In re: Ford Motor Co F-150 and Ranger Truck Fuel Economy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-1245.[GN] FORD MOTOR: Make Voluntary Recalls as Defense in Engine Defect Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- dentons.com reports that federal district courts rule that comprehensive voluntary recalls can short-circuit costly class action litigation. Since the start of the year, voluntary recalls have lead to early dismissals of putative class action litigation. Courts have dismissed these suits based on one of two grounds: (1) the prudential mootness doctrine, and (2) lack of Article III standing. Ford Motor Company is a recent beneficiary. 14 consumers from 11 states sued Ford in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan over an alleged engine defect affecting certain hybrid vehicles. In Pacheco, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:22-cv-11927 (E.D. Mich.). These plaintiffs alleged that their engines allowed oil and fuel vapors to leak near ignition sources, creating a "spontaneous fire risk." They asserted claims for fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of warranty, as well as violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and several consumer protection statutes. However, on July 7, 2022, a month before the suit was filed, Ford voluntarily recalled approximately 100,000 vehicles. The recall, supervised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), directed owners to bring their vehicles to dealerships for repairs at no charge. Moving to dismiss the suit, Ford pointed to the recall to argue that Plaintiffs' claims were prudentially moot. The district court agreed. The court embraced the Tenth Circuit's analysis in Winzler v. Toyota, a 2012 decision in which then-Judge Gorsuch explained that where a company "sets into motion the great grinding gears of a statutorily mandated and administratively overseen national recall processs," there is generally no reason for the courts to jump in. Here, the court ackowledged the doctrine would not bar suit where a recall fails to provide the plaintiffs "complete relief." However, plaintiffs had failed to allege any risk remained in light of the remedy at hand. Plaintiffs also insisted the repair created a new and separate risk -- fluids leaking onto roadways. But none had actually experienced this, so there was simply no actual, concrete injury on this basis. The Court went on to reject plaintiffs' claims to "overpayment" damages. Here too, the recall remedy -- overseen by a coordinate branch of government -- addressed the alleged defect giving rise to their diminished value claim. Because there was "no effective relief" left for the court to provide, the court granted Ford's motion to dismiss in its entirety. Meanwhile, in January, the District Court for the Southern District of California arguably went further, holding that participation in the CPSC's Fast Track Recall Program stripped a would-be lead plaintiff of Article III standing. Charlton v. LG Energy Sol. Michigan, Inc. involved LG's December 16, 2020, and August 4, 2021, voluntary Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") recalls pursuant to the CPSC's Fast Track Recall program. Specifically, the recalls addressed defective Residential Energy Storage Unit ("RESU") batteries that provide energy storage and backup power for homes. The RESU batteries cost several thousand dollars, and LG offered consumers replacement products and renewed warranties. Despite the recalls' robust remedies, on October 6, 2021, the Plaintiff served LG with a letter demanding additional remedies and threatening suit. LG provided a timely written response advising Plaintiff of the Recalls and its commitment to providing a remedy through the CPSC's Fast Track Recall program. The Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint on November 12, 2021. The Plaintiff asserted violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") because LG admitted the RESU batteries were defective and offered to replace them. However, the Plaintiff asserted that LG had not done so for approximately one year, claiming the inability to obtain adequate replacement parts while at the same time selling new, non-defective batteries to new customers. After removing the case to the Southern District of California, LG moved to dismiss on various grounds, including standing. LG explained that in conjunction with the CPSC, in 2020 and 2021, it announced the Recalls for RESU batteries purchased by consumers in the United States, including consumers in California. The Recalls' terms included stopping the sale of RESU batteries that incorporated defective battery cells, offering replacement RESU batteries to consumers at no cost, and including a new 10-year warranty for each RESU replaced. The Recalls were publicly announced and widely disseminated to distributors and customers alike. The Court held LG "provided a timely response to [Plaintiff] and had already initiated its recall program, which is being monitored by CPSC, and will provide replacement products and renewed warranties to consumers. Therefore, [Plaintiff's] CLRA and UCL claims should be dismissed because there is no live case or controversy required under Article III." Besides the legal and business considerations that may lead a company to participate in a voluntary recall, Charlton and Pacheco powerfully illustrate additional legal protections flowing from a choice to remove defective products from the marketplace and provide a robust consumer remedy. These decisions suggest that prudential mootness and/or lack of standing arguments will become even more popular among manufacturers who have voluntarily recalled their products.[GN] FREEDOM CONSTRUCTION: Mongelos Sues Over Nonpayment of OT Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTIAN MONGELOS, DANIEL HERNANDEZ, MARIO ESTEBAN FLORES, and JIMMY FERNANDO SANCHEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who were employed by FW Freedom Construction Corp., Plaintiffs v. FW FREEDOM CONSTRUCTION CORP., WELDON COSTA, and FREDERICO DA SILVA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03259 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Protection Act. One of the Plaintiffs, Christian Mongelos was employed by the Defendants from approximately November 6, 2016 through approximately March 15, 2022. Throughout his employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Mongelos the proper overtime compensation at the rate of 1.5 times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Among other things, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff Mongelos with statements of wages with every payment of wages, says the suit. Freedom Construction is an interior drywall and installation contractor that operates in the state of New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anna Goldstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Ave. Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 490-3600 Facsimile: (212) 682-0278 E-mail: anna@adklawfirm.com GENERAL MOTORS: Oral Argument on Class Cert Set for May 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINGUEZ HURRY, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00673-ECM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order setting oral argument for motion to certify class for May 17, 2023. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L1Pi8J at no extra charge.[CC] GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Shaffer Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SHAFFER, MARGARET MAULDIN, CHARAFEDDINE ZAITOUN, and MARC LESSIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01145-RJL (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes, and appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and their counsel as Class Counsel. George Washington is a private federally chartered research university in Washington, D.C. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ovTtSx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com dank@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com - and - Glenn Ivey, Esq. Andrew S. Levetown, Esq. IVEY & LEVETOWN, LLP 6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 304 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (703) 618-2264 E-mail: ivey@iveylevetown.com asl@iveylevetown.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE MAIN STREET, SUITE 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (312) 594-5999 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net dwalker@bm.net HIGHMARK BCBSD: Walker, et al., Seek Final OK of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER JAMES WALKER, KIM STERLING, and ERNIE FISHER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HIGHMARK BCBSD HEALTH OPTIONS, INC.; COTIVITI, INC. Case No. 2:20-cv-01975-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs submit a motion for final approval of class action settlement and certification of settlement class. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40snCPX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq. THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC 1704 Maxwell Drive Wall, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 455-9737 Facsimile: (732) 965-8006 E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com HORIZON BANCORP: Sued Over Alleged Deficient Internal Accounting ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shweta Watwe at bloomberglaw.com reports that Horizon Bancorp Inc., the holding company for Horizon Bank, has been sued over allegedly deficient internal accounting controls that caused financial restatements and prevented timely filings. Investor Chad Key filed the class-action complaint in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He alleges the company's accounting controls led to misclassifications of its loan balances and securities that resulted in erroneous financial statements. The financial statements were allegedly reissued with corrections and hindered the company's ability to file its 2022 report on time. The proposed class includes those who bought Horizon securities. [GN] INTER-CON SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Young Suit Asserts ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREG YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02943 (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Labor Code and relevant Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. Plaintiff Greg Young was an hourly-paid, non-exempt security officer employee of the Defendant. He worked in the field in various parts of California from approximately May 2016 until approximately August 2020. His tasks include providing security services including patrolling, monitoring, and reporting suspicious activity at Defendant's customers' sites. Allegedly, the Defendant typically required its security officers employees to perform uncompensated work "off-the-clock" before and after their scheduled shifts. In addition, the Defendant frequently failed to provide rest breaks required by relevant state laws and failed to fully relieve Young and similarly situated security officers during requisite meal breaks in California, says the Plaintiff. According to its website, Inter-Con Security is a security company in the business of providing physical security, asset transportation, training services, program management, surveillance, executive protection, intelligence, and an array of other services to its customers. The company employs over 35,000 employees worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 4241 Jutland Dr., Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92117 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com - and - Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 400 North Saint Paul St., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (979) 220-2824 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com INTERIM HOME: Toole Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- William Toole, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. INTERIM HOME HEALTHCARE INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00649-MEM (M.D. Pa., April 18, 2023), is brought against the Defendant, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum wage Act ("PMWA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime premium pay. The Defendant pays Plaintiff and other employees an hourly wage. The Defendant deems Plaintiff and other employees eligible for "time and-one-half" overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40 per week. The Defendant fails to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly employees time and-one-half overtime premium pay for all hours worked over 40 per week. By failing to pay the Plaintiff and other employees overtime premium compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week, Defendant has acted willfully and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Personal Care Assistant from August 2022 until April 2023. The Defendant is a company that provides a variety of home health services, senior care services, and healthcare staffing services throughout Northeast Pennsylvania counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com IT'S JUST LUNCH: Vrugtman, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANNE VRUGTMAN, TAMMY GILLINGWATER, and NICOLE KRUZICK, individually, and for all others similarly situated, v. IT'S JUST LUNCH INTERNATIONAL LLC, IJL US LLC, IJL CANADA INC.Case No. 5:20-cv-02352-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Vrugtman and Gillingwater ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying this action to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. Appointing Vrugtman and Kruzick to serve as representatives of the National Class; Vrugtman as representative as well for the Virginia Subclass; and Kruzick as well as representative of the California Subclass. 3. Appointing Balestriere Fariello and KBK to serve as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 4. Granting Plaintiffs leave to file the Third Amended Complaint; and 5. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. IJL fraudulently misrepresents the quality of its services to all of its customers across the Nation. This case must proceed as a class action so the Defendants will stop their fraud and compensate all members of the Classes for their losses, the lawsuit says. The Defendants It's Just Lunch International LLC and IJL US LLC engaged in a uniform and systematic course of fraud against consumers by misstating the nature of IJL's so-called "personalized matchmaking service." Rather than, as it advertises, offering individualized matchmaker services based on each customer's individual wishes, IJL is in fact designed, once it lures consumers in to pay thousands of dollars each for its service, to efficiently "match" its clients with anyone who meets a superficial list of interests. This is not a "personalized" matchmaking service at all, but an example of the same kind of fraud that resulted in IJL settling a similar class action barely months before the Class Period in this action began. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class, with subclasses of current and former California and Virginia residents respectively. The Plaintiffs assert nine causes of action, including violations of Nevada consumer protection laws on behalf of the Class for the Nationwide Class and California and Virginia residents for the respective subclasses of those states. IJL is a premier "personalized" dating service, offering to connect individuals interested in romantic relationships. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N6Xgjp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew W. Schmidt, Esq. BALESTRIERE FARIELLO 225 Broadway, 29th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 374-5401 Facsimile: (212) 208-2613 E-mail: john.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com matthew.schmidt@balestrierefariello.com - and - Anastasia Mazzella, Esq. KABATECK LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 217-5007 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: am@kbklawyers.com JACKSON HEWITT: Final Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WANDA MARDIS, et al., v. JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02115-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting final approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement including an award of attorney's fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (d)(2) subject to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). The factual and legal grounds supporting final approval and awarding Class Counsels' attorney's fees and costs are explained and supported by the accompanying Brief, Declarations of the Court's appointed Third-Party Settlement Administrator, Caroline Ramsey Taylor, Bishop Friend P.S.C., Jessie Wing, Andrew T. Thomasson, Jeffrey Taren, Bradley K. King, the proposed Settlement and Release for Deceased Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards to Representative Plaintiffs and its supporting documents, and any oral argument the Court entertains by the Parties' counsel. Jackson Hewitt provides legal services. The Company offers tax preparation, computerized income tax returns, credit and deduction handling. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UY2FLI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. THOMASSON PLLC 350 Springfield Avenue, Suite 200 Summit, NJ 07901 Telephone: (973) 665-2056 - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. Caroline Taylor, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC - and - Robert W. "Joe" Bishop, Esq. John S. Friend, Esq. BISHOP FRIEND P.S.C. 6520 Glenridge Park Place Suite 6 Louisville, KY 40222 Telephone: (502) 425-2600 - and - Jesse Wing, Esq. MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 2nd Ave Unit 1500 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-1604 JACKSON HEWITT: Santiago Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jackson Hewitt, Inc. The case is styled as Carolyn Rodriguez Santiago, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00697-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- https://www.jacksonhewitt.com/ -- is the second largest tax-preparation service in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com JOHN BALDWIN: Thompson Bid for Intervention in Davis Suit Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN BALDWIN, Case No. 3:16-cv-00600 (S.D. Ill.), Hon. Judge Mark A. Beatty entered an order denying Inmate Walter Thompson's motions to formally intervene in the class action and/or for the Court to allow the issue they raised regarding lockdowns at Pinckneyville to be litigated as part of this class action. The Court also declines to provide the relief Mr. Thompson seek. In the last six weeks, the Court has received two motions and six letters from IDOC inmates claiming that the inmates in general population at Pinckneyville Correctional Center are subjected to excessive lockdowns, and as a result, face conditions that are the same (or even worse) than the conditions of inmates in segregation. The Court said, "Each of the inmates is already a member of the class -- defining the class as "all prisoners who are now or will be incarcerated in adult correctional facilities by the Illinois Department of Corrections" and therefore need not intervene." Further, because the class is represented by counsel, inmates may not file their own independent motions; all filings must come through class counsel. That being said, the issues the inmates raise regarding lockdowns at Pinckneyville are outside the scope of these proceedings. This class action challenges the IDOC's use of restrictive housing on a system-wide basis and asks whether inmates in restrictive housing are denied due process and subjected to inhumane conditions (Doc. 230). These proceedings cannot be used to address specific instances of lockdowns at a single facility, the lawsuit says. As for the Rule 23 Notice, neither side asked in their class certification briefing to issue a Notice to class members, and therefore the Court did not order Notice to be provided. The Court declines to order Notice to be provided at this juncture, particularly without the input of the parties. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Other Civil Rights.[CC] KINKISHARYO INT'L: Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY LOAIZA, JOSE LANDAVERDE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-07662-JAK-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1) advancing the hearing date on Plaintiffs Anthony Loaiza and Jose Landaverde's pending motion to consolidate actions, or, in the alternative; 2) extending the Motion for Class Certification and related deadlines to a date after the Motion to Consolidate Actions is decided. In line with the Court's guidance in its Order denying the class certification motion without prejudice, the Plaintiffs intend to refile their Motion for Class Certification which includes the addition of Plaintiff Steven Cooper as a nonUnion member class representative. Because the nearest date Plaintiffs were able to reserve for the hearing on their pending Motion to Consolidate which would bring in Plaintiff Cooper to the instant action is May 8, 2023, a date which is 10 days after the current April 28, 2023 deadline for Plaintiffs to refile their Motion for Class Certification, the Court should advance the consolidation motion hearing to a date prior to April 28, 2023, the lawsuit says. Alternatively, the Court should continue the Motion for Class Certification and related deadlines to a later date which allows for resolution of the pending Motion to Consolidate Action. Without the requested relief, the putative class will be irreparably harmed for a situation that was not of their creation, the lawsuit adds. On April 13, 2023, the Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion to Consolidate Actions, and also communicated by phone that Defendant intends to oppose the instant ex parte application. On April 14, 2023 at 5:57 p.m., counsel for Plaintiff left a voicemail to Defendant’s counsel providing notice of the instant ex parte Application. Kinkisharyo provides customized solutions for urban transit agencies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KUC8KN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tara Zabehi, Esq. Travis J. Maher, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 E-mail: tara@calljustice.com travis@calljustice.com LG ELECTRONICS: Brito Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 3rd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff PETER BRITO filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2023 entered in the lawsuit PEDRO BRITO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS INC., Defendants, Case No. 2-22-cv-05777, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Plaintiff filed the class action on Sept. 29, 2022. On Nov. 14, 2022, LG moved to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The Plaintiff then amended its Complaint ("FAC") and the motion to dismiss was denied as moot. The parties then stipulated to a revised briefing schedule for the motion to compel and the response to the Plaintiff's FAC. The class action lawsuit alleges that the Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that the control knobs on some of their gas and electric ranges were defective. The Plaintiff alleges that LG knew of the defect since at least 2016, failed to disclose the defect, and continues to manufacture and sell ranges with the defective knobs. Had he known of the defect, he would not have purchased the Range or would have paid a significantly lower price, says the suit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entered an order on March 29, 2023, granting LG's motion to compel arbitration and staying the matter pending arbitration. Judge Vazquez opined that the "Definitions" section of the agreement does make explicit that statutory claims fall within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate. Furthermore, he says Florida law applies, and under Florida law, a broad arbitration clause may waive statutory claims where they arise from or relate to a contract containing an arbitration clause. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The appellate case is captioned as Peter Brito v. LG Electronics USA Inc, et al., Case No. 23-1661, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 12, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PETER BRITO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Zachary Arbitman, Esq. Alan M. Feldman, Esq. Edward S. Goldis, Esq. Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 Defendants-Appellees LG ELECTRONICS USA INC and LG ELECTRONICS INC are represented by: Allison M. Wuertz, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US 390 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 918-3067 LINCOLN BENEFIT: Court Certifies Class of Insureds in Farley Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Deana Farley, Plaintiff v. Lincoln Benefit Life Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and denies her requests to seal certain information. The case concerns the lapse and termination of certain life insurance policies. The Plaintiff claims the Defendant did not comply with California state law regulating the policies. In April 2011, Farley purchased a life insurance policy for her son's life from Lincoln. The policy contained a contractual 61-day grace period and stated defendant would send a written notice at least 30 days prior to the day coverage lapses. In 2016, the Plaintiff's policy lapsed for nonpayment and she subsequently reinstated the policy. She continued to make payments until she missed a payment in 2018. The Defendant lapsed the policy and terminated it for nonpayment and the Plaintiff did not take steps to reinstate the policy. California Insurance Code sections 10113.713 and 10113.724 (collectively, statutes) went into effect in 2013. he statutes provide policyholders three procedural safeguards: 1) policy owners must be given the right to designate an additional person to receive a notice of lapse or termination; 2) "policy owners and any designees must receive notice within 30 days of a missed premium payment, and any lapse or termination for nonpayment will not be effective unless insurers send notice to these parties at least 30 days prior;" and 3) each policy must have at least a 60-day grace period. The statutes apply to all life insurance policies in force when these two sections went into effect, regardless of when the policies were originally issued. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated section 10113.72 by failing to provide notice of a right to designate an alternative notice recipient. Because the Defendant violated the statutes, she claims termination of the policy was ineffective and the policy remains in force. She also claims the termination of the policy constituted a material breach of the contract. The Plaintiff brings the putative class action based on the Defendant's non-compliance with the statutes. She brings the following four claims individually and on behalf of the putative class: 1) declaratory judgment or relief under California Civil Procedure Code section 1060; 2) declaratory judgment or relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201; 3) breach of contract; and 4) unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. In March 2021, the Court stayed the action pending resolution of appeals before the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit raising the same issues presented in this case. In September 2021, it lifted the stay because the relevant appeals were resolved and the parties proceeded with discovery related to class certification. The Plaintiff now moves to certify and represent the following class: All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued in California before 2013 that Defendant lapsed or terminated for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013 without first providing all the notices, grace periods, and offers of designation required by Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. The Defendant opposes and the Plaintiff has replied. On Feb. 17, 2023, the Court held a hearing on this matter. The Plaintiff requests to seal documents containing information designated by the Defendant as "CONFIDENTIAL" under the terms of the discovery only Protective Order in the action. Judge Mueller holds that the Plaintiff's reliance on the stipulated protective order does not offer a compelling reason to overcome the presumption in favor of access. Apart from the terms of the discovery protective order, the Plaintiff offers no other reason to seal the documents covered by her request. Judge Mueller thus denies the request to seal. Judge Mueller then turns to the motion for class certification. She explains that class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Rule 23 imposes four prerequisites on every class: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Plaintiffs who satisfy these four prerequisites must also show the proposed class fits within one of the three categories of classes described in Rule 23(b). The Plaintiff seeks certification under two of these categories: Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). In the alternative, she seeks certification under Rule 23(c)(4). A class can be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) if the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Rule 23(b)(3) permits certification of a class if common questions of law and fact predominate, and a class action is the superior means of litigation. The party seeking class certification bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) are met. Judge Mueller that the class satisfies the Rule 23(a) requirements because (i) the class comprises tens of thousands of individuals with affected policies; (ii) there is an overarching common question of law and fact raised in the Plaintiff's complaint which is whether the Defendant violated California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 by not providing the statutes' required procedural safeguards prior to lapsing and/or terminating life insurance policies; (iii) the Plaintiff and the putative class members suffered the same injury; and (iv) the Plaintiff's representation is adequate. With respect to class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), Judge Mueller holds that given that the claims of the putative class as a whole are amenable to a singular order on declaratory relief, Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied as to these claims. And, given the suitability of the controversy to singular declaratory and injunctive relief, she also finds that Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied. However, Judge Mueller finds that class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) must be denied without prejudice because the Plaintiff is not an adequate class representative because she is still alive and is not seeking monetary relief, only declaratory relief. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to certify a subclass of those who are specifically requesting monetary relief, her claims are not typical of this putative subclass. If the Plaintiff wishes to seek certification of a subclass, it would appear she will need to show good cause for amending the scheduling order, to allow her to move to add a new class representative who can adequately represent the subclass, and also to move to certify the subclass. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mueller grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2). She denies without prejudice the class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). She also denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's request to seal. The following class is certified: All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued in California before 2013 that Defendant lapsed or terminated for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013 without first providing all the notices, grace periods, and offers of designation required by Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. Judge Mueller appoints the Plaintiff as the Class Representative and Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and Winters & Associates as the Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). The Order resolves ECF Nos. 40 and 41. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3fx2kbrz from Leagle.com. LYONS MAGNUS: Deringer Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTY DERINGER, v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC, et al.,Case No. 1:22-cv-00968-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). No class has been certified and the matter is being dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the Court finds that dismissal does not require court approval under Rule 23(e), the Court says. The Plaintiff Christy Deringer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed this putative class action on August 3, 2022. On December 6, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. No opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed, no other responsive pleading has been filed, and no motion for class certification has been filed in this action. On March 31, 2023, the District Judge granted the parties' motion to stay this action and ordered dispositional documents to be filed within 30 days. On April 14, 2023, the Plaintiff Christy Deringer filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action and their individual claims only pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Plaintiff dismisses this action without prejudice and with each party to bear their own costs and fees. Lyons Magnus produces and markets food products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AkIUnY at no extra charge.[CC] LYONS MAGNUS: Radford Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN RADFORD, v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00088-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A Boone entered an order directing clerk of court to randomly assign district judge and to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal pursuant to rule R1(a) of the federal rules of civil procedure. The Court says. "No class has been certified and the matter is being dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the Court finds that dismissal does not require court approval under Rule 23(e)." The Plaintiff Radford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed this putative class action on January 19, 2023. On March 10, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. No opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed, no other responsive pleading has been filed, and no motion for class certification has been filed in this action. On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff Radford filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Plaintiff dismisses this action without prejudice and with each party to bear their own costs and fees. Lyons Magnus produces and markets food products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41VM79z at no extra charge.[CC] LYONS MAGNUS: Sinico Suit Voluntary Dismissed --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTA SINICO, v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01479-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order directing clerk of court to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the federal rules of civil procedure: On December 1, 2003, Rule 23(e) was amended to allow the "parties to a proposed class action to stipulate to dismissal of the action without any judicial approval where the class has not yet been certified." Here, no class has been certified and the matter is being dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the Court finds that dismissal does not require court approval under Rule 23(e). The Plaintiff Roberta Sinico, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed this putative class action on November 11, 2022. On January 20, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10.) No opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed, no other responsive pleading has been filed, and no motion for class certification has been filed in this action. On March 31, 2023, the District Judge granted the parties' motion to stay this action, and ordered dispositional documents to be filed within 30 days. On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff Roberta Sinico filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action and his individual claims only pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Plaintiff dismisses this action without prejudice and with each party to bear their own costs and fees. Lyons Magnus produces and markets food products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AtkmsZ at no extra charge.[CC] MALLINCKRODT PLC: Edelman Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled DARREL EDELMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARK TRUDEAU, STEPHEN WELCH, DAVID NORTON, BRYAN REASONS, and JOANN REED, Defendants, Case No. C-48-CV-2023-1378, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 12, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01395 to the proceeding. On October 12, 2020, Mallinckrodt PLC and its affiliates filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, jointly administered as In re Mallinckrodt plc, et al., No. 20-12522 (JLD). The case was assigned to U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John T. Dorsey. On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff Edelman filed a class action complaint against Defendants alleging that he held 11,496 shares of Mallinckrodt common stock before Mallinckrodt entered the Chapter 11 Cases. The Defendants are alleged current or former officers or directors of Mallinckrodt. The Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a 100% uncompensated loss of the entirety of his ownership in Mallinckrodt, valued at a minimum of $184,871.36. The Plaintiff brings a putative class action on behalf of all former shareholders in Mallinckrodt who opted out of the bankruptcy releases and lost all value of their ownership interests in Mallinckrodt through the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy. Mallinckrodt PLC develops, produces, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher R. Harris, Esq. Justin S. Kirschner, Esq. Chengliang (Larry) Hong, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 E-mail: christopher.harris@lw.com justin.kirschner@lw.com larry.hong@lw.com - and - Jason B. Gott, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 Facsimile: (312) 993-9767 E-mail: jason.gott@lw.com - and - Lee C. Durivage, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-2584 Facsimile: (215) 575-0856 E-mail: lcdurivage@mdwcg.com MDL 2406: A4 Suit Consolidated in Blue Cross/Shield Antitrust Row ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 2406, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case styled as "Anesthesia Associates of Ann Arbor PLLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan," C.A. No. 2:20−12916, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge R. David Proctor for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Anesthesia Associates of Ann Arbor PLLC (A4) moved to vacate said transfer order conditionally transferring its action to MDL No. 2406. Defendants opposed the motion. The panel finds that transfer is warranted for the reasons set forth in its initial order establishing this MDL docket, which is comprised of actions involving factual questions regarding "the licensing agreements between and among the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and its 38 licensees (Blue Plans)." There are two categories of MDL plaintiffs, health insurance subscribers and healthcare providers, both of which "contend that the 38 Blue Plans are independent health insurance companies that, but for any agreement to the contrary, could and would compete with one another." Plaintiffs in A4 are anesthesia providers in Michigan, and their action thus falls within the MDL's ambit, rules the panel. A full-text copy of the court's April 7, 2023 Transfer Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2406-Transfer_Order-3-23.pdf MDL 2441: Two Suits Consolidated in Hip Implant Liability Row ------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2441, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring one case each from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and the Western District of Oklahoma to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank for inclusion in coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the two actions moved to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally transferring their actions to MDL No. 2441. Defendant Howmedica Osteonics Corp. opposed the motion. According to the panel, the two actions share factual questions arising from injuries allegedly caused by Stryker's recalled "Rejuvenate" and "ABG II" modular-neck hip implant products, and involve injuries related to the Stryker ABG II hip implants that plaintiffs in both actions received and, thus, fall within the MDL's ambit. A full-text copy of the court's April 7, 2023 Transfer Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2441-Transfer_Order-3-23.pdf MDL 2873: Nine Suits Consolidated in Film-Forming Foams Product Row ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring six cases from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin and one each from the Northern District of California, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of Texas all to the District of South Carolina and assigning it to Richard M. Gergel for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the nine actions move to vacate the panel's orders that conditionally transfers their respective actions to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. Defendants Tyco Fire Products, L.P., and Chemguard, Inc., oppose the motions to vacate as to all nine actions. Defendant 3M Company opposes the motions to vacate as to the State of California and the City of Philadelphia actions. Plaintiffs argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction over their respective actions is lacking, and that pending motions for remand to state court should be decided before transfer. However, the panel has held that jurisdictional objections such as those asserted in these actions generally do not present an impediment to transfer. In the panel's order centralizing this litigation, it was determined that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that AFFF products used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release of PFOS and/or PFOA into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water. The panel finds that the nine said actions share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs, the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human health and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies. A full-text copy of the court's April 10, 2023 Transfer Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Transfer_Order-3-23.pdf MDL 2924: 2 Suits Consolidated in Ranitidine Product Liability Row ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2924, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two cased lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Texas to the Southern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Robin L. Rosenberg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In the panel's order centralizing this litigation, it held that the Southern District of Florida was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations that ranitidine, the active molecule in Zantac and similar heartburn medications, can form the carcinogen N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), either during storage or when metabolized in the human body. In support of their motions to vacate, plaintiffs in both actions argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction over their respective actions is lacking and that the transferor courts should decide their pending remand motions before any transfer. The panel, however, finds that the actions involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2924, and that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. A full-text copy of the court's April 10, 2023 Transfer Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2924-Transfer_Order-3-23.pdf MDL 2948: Two Suits Consolidated in TikTok Consumer Privacy Row --------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In re: TikTok Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation," MDL No. 2948, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two cases from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and one each from the District of New Jersey, Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all to the Northern District of Illinois and assigning them to Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The actions initially centralized in MDL No. 2948 involved allegations that TikTok, through its popular social networking app, engaged in "the scanning, capture, retention, and dissemination of the facial geometry and other biometric information of users of the app." In opposing transfer to MDL No. 2948, plaintiffs argue that their actions involve questions of fact and legal claims distinct from those involved in the MDL. Quoting the language of the order centralizing MDL No. 2948, plaintiffs contend that the MDL included only claims relating to biometric data collected through the video-sharing functions of the app and did not encompass the claims asserted in the in-app browser actions. They further argue that their claims relate to conduct by TikTok that was not disclosed until after the class settlement in MDL No. 2948 had been approved and that the in-app browser claims consequently could not have been raised, or resolved, in the MDL. Plaintiffs maintain that their in-app browser actions should not be included in MDL No. 2948, but instead should be centralized separately, along with similar in-app browser actions, as a new MDL. According to the panel, "these actions share common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2948, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The initial question in the in-app browser actions will be whether the claims asserted in those actions were released pursuant to the MDL No. 2948 settlement. Should Judge Pallmeyer decide that some or all of the claims survive, the in-app browser actions may proceed before her as part of MDL No. 2948." A full-text copy of the court's April 7, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2948-Transfer_Order-3-23.pdf MDL 3004: Paraquat Suit Transferred to S.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------ In the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3004, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case styled as Dufour, et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protections, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:22−00911, M.D. La.) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and assigned to Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In said complaint, plaintiff alleges that the use of paraquat causes Parkinson's Disease. Since 1964, Paraquat has been used in the United States to kill broadleaf weeds and grasses before the planting or emergence of various crops, to control weeds in orchards, and to desiccate plants before harvest. The panel finds that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 3004, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sectiom 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in the panel's order directing centralization. In that order, it held that the Southern District of Illinois was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations that exposure to the herbicide paraquat caused plaintiffs to suffer Parkinson's Disease. Plaintiff in Dufour alleges that his use of paraquat as a crop duster for a period of several decades caused him to develop Parkinson's Disease. Dufour thus falls within the MDL's ambit. A full-text copy of the court's April 7, 2023 Transfer Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3004-Transfer_Order-3-23.pdf MDL 3014: Gandy Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3014, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case docketed as Gandy v. Koninklijke Philips NV, et al., C.A. No. 4:23−00058, S.D. Tex.) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joy Flowers Conti for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Gandy moved to vacate said order by arguing that federal subject matter jurisdiction over their action is lacking and that the transferor court should decide their pending remand motion before any transfer. But the panel finds that this is not an impediment to transfer. The action here asserts overlapping claims for violations of state consumer protection statutes, breach of warranties and unjust enrichment arising from recalled ventilators and the potential harm that can be caused by their alleged inherent defect. The recalled devices allegedly contain polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement foam that may degrade into particles or off-gas volatile organic compounds that may then be ingested or inhaled by the user, causing injury. A full-text copy of the court's April 10, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3014-Transfer_Order-3-23.pdf MDL 3043: Ct. Denies Transfer of LNK Suit to Acetaminophen Row ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Acetaminophen - ASD/ADHD Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3043, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the transfer of "L.N.K. International, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company," (C.A. No. 2:22−05184). Said action presents common factual questions arising from the allegation that plaintiffs used over-the-counter generic acetaminophen products while pregnant and, as a result of prenatal exposure to acetaminophen, their children developed autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or both. The common factual questions include whether prenatal exposure to acetaminophen can cause ASD and ADHD, whether and when defendants knew or should have known of the risk based on studies allegedly linking acetaminophen to ASD and ADHD and the alleged role and potential responsibility of common suppliers of the acetaminophen products at issue. After considering the argument of counsel, the motion for transfer was denied by the panel. The LNK action is a multi-product declaratory judgment insurance coverage action that involves coverage questions beyond the products at issue in MDL No. 3043. Generic manufacturer LNK seeks coverage from its former insurer Continental for three types of consumer claims and products, only the last of which concern the MDL: (1) "Non-Drowsy" actions alleging that store brand cough syrup products with dextromethorphan hydrobromide are falsely labeled "Non-Drowsy," (2) "Rapid Release" actions alleging that store brand acetaminophen "Rapid Release Gelcaps" are not rapid release and (3) ASD/ADHD actions alleging that store brand acetaminophen products used by pregnant women altered fetal development and increased the risk of ASD and ADHD in their children. Although the ASD/ADHD actions for which LNK seeks coverage appear to be part of the MDL, it would be inefficient to bring coverage claims arising from the first two unrelated litigation matters into this mass tort MDL. The extent of overlapping discovery between LNK and the MDL is sharply disputed. Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel in the MDL anticipate that LNK will involve discovery on the insured's knowledge of the health risks presented by acetaminophen and the adequacy of its labeling, which they assert will be part of the discovery in the MDL. The parties to LNK represent that the duty to defend claims in LNK will be resolved without discovery and that, as to the duty to indemnify claim, they will not take discovery that overlaps with the MDL discovery. The panel deemed it unnecessary to weigh in on the likely scope of discovery in LNK given the non-common issues discussed above, but note that MDL counsel's expectations for discovery in LNK are not supported by the categories of discovery discussed in the LNK scheduling order. The panel also deemed it significant that the parties that purportedly would benefit from centralized discovery (the insured and insurer) all oppose transfer. A further consideration weighing against transfer is that significant coverage questions in LNK appear to turn on policy-specific issues that are wholly unrelated to the MDL. These include LNK's cancellation of the policy in mid-2022 and the extent of coverage under an alleged 90-day extension period and whether Continental is entitled to reformation of the policy due to an alleged "clerical error" in the definition of "damages" in the policy. In deciding whether to centralize an insurance coverage action with underlying tort claims, the panel considers several factors including whether the same products and alleged defects are involved, whether the insurance coverage action involves the same factual discovery as the underlying tort actions, and whether the questions in the coverage action are primarily legal questions requiring little or no discovery. Centralization of insurance actions in an MDL will always depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the litigation. The case-specific factual and legal issues in the LNK action disfavor transfer, and movants' speculation about potentially overlapping discovery is insufficient to support transfer, rules the panel. A full-text copy of the court's April 7, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3043-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-23.pdf META PLATFORMS: $725MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- United States District Court for the Northern District of California In re: Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, Case No. 3:18-md-02843-VC NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION If you were a Facebook user in the United States between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022, inclusive, you may be eligible for a cash payment from a Class Action Settlement. A Settlement has been reached between Defendant Facebook, Inc., now known as Meta Platforms, Inc., ("Meta" or "Defendant") and Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You are included in this Settlement as a Settlement Class Member if you were a Facebook user in the United States between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022, inclusive. The lawsuit is known as In re: Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, Case No. 3:18-md-02843-VC (N.D. Cal.). Defendant denies that it violated any law but has agreed to the Settlement to avoid the costs and risks associated with continuing this case. Your rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Please read this Notice carefully. SUMMARY OF YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT SUBMIT A CLAIM The only way to receive a cash payment from this Settlement is by submitting a timely and properly completed Claim Form that obtains approval from the Settlement Administrator. The Claim Form must be submitted no later than August 25, 2023. You can submit your Claim Form online at www.FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com or download the Claim Form from the Settlement Website and mail it to the Settlement Administrator. You may also call the Settlement Administrator to receive a paper copy of the Claim Form. If your claim is approved by the Settlement Administrator, you will give up the right to sue the Defendant in a separate lawsuit about the legal claims or factual allegations this Settlement resolves DEADLINE AUGUST 25, 2023 OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT You can choose to opt out of the Settlement and receive no payment. This option allows you to sue, continue to sue, or be part of another lawsuit against the Defendant related to the legal claims and factual allegations resolved by this Settlement. You can choose to hire your own legal counsel at your own expense. DEADLINE JULY 26, 2023 OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT AND/OR ATTEND A HEARING If you do not opt out of the Settlement, you may object to it by writing to the Court about why you don't like the Settlement. You may also ask the Court for permission to speak about your objection at the Final Approval Hearing. If you object, you may also file a claim for a payment DEADLINE JULY 26, 2023 DO NOTHING Unless you opt out of the settlement, you are automatically part of the Settlement. If you do nothing, you will not get a payment from this Settlement and you will give up the right to sue, continue to sue, or be part of another lawsuit against the Defendant related to the legal claims or factual allegations resolved by this Settlement DEADLINE No Deadline These rights and options—and the deadlines to exercise them—are explained in this Notice. The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement Why was this Notice issued? A federal court authorized this Notice because you have a right to know about the proposed Settlement of this class action lawsuit and about all of your options before the Court decides whether to grant final approval of the Settlement. This Notice explains the lawsuit, your legal rights, what benefits are available, and who can receive them. What is this lawsuit about? Numerous lawsuits were brought on behalf of Facebook users who allege that Facebook (now Meta Platforms, Inc.) shared or otherwise made accessible to third parties (including but not limited to thirdparty app developers, "whitelisted" parties, business partners, advertisers, and data brokers) user data and data about users' friends without permission of the users whose data was shared, and did not sufficiently monitor and enforce third-party access or use of that data. The Honorable Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California was appointed to oversee these lawsuits, which have been consolidated as In re: Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, Case No. 3:18-md-02843-VC (N.D. Cal.). The people that filed this lawsuit are called the "Plaintiffs" and the company they sued, Facebook, Inc. (now Meta Platforms, Inc.) is called the "Defendant." Settlement Class Members include all Facebook users in the United States between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022, inclusive. Meta expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing. Who is in the Settlement? The Settlement Class includes all Facebook users in the United States between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). You may file a claim if you were a Facebook user in the United States between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022, inclusive. Each Settlement Class Member may only file one claim. Are there exceptions to being included? Yes. The Settlement Class does not include: (i) all persons who are directors, officers, legal representatives, alleged co-conspirators, and agents of Defendant or its wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies or employees of Defendant or its subsidiaries and affiliated companies; (ii) counsel for any plaintiff whose case was consolidated into this MDL and their employees, including but not limited to Class Counsel for Plaintiffs and their employees; (iii) the Special Master, Discovery Mediators, and Settlement Mediator who participated in this case and their staff; and the Judges and Court staff, as well as any appellate court to which this matter is ever assigned; and (iv) eligible persons who elect to opt out of the Settlement Class. You may file a claim if you were a Facebook user in the United States between May 24, 2007, and December 22, 2022, inclusive. If you are not sure whether you are included in the Settlement Class, you can ask for free help by emailing the Settlement Administrator at info@FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com or calling the Settlement Administrator at 1-855-556-2233. You may also view the Settlement Agreement at www.FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com. THE SETTLEMENT BENEFIT What does the Settlement provide? If the Settlement is approved by the Court, Meta will establish a Settlement Fund of seven hundred twenty-five million dollars ($725,000,000.00) to pay all valid claims submitted by the Settlement Class Members, as well as notice and administration expenses, any attorneys' fees and costs, and any Service Awards for the Settlement Class Representatives. How do I submit a claim and get a cash payment? You may file a claim if you were a Facebook user in the United States between May 24, 2007 and December 22, 2022, inclusive. Claim Forms may be submitted online at www.FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com or printed from the Settlement Website and mailed to the Settlement Administrator at: Facebook Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, c/o Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. You may also contact the Settlement Administrator to request a Claim Form by telephone 1-855-556-2233, by email info@FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com, or by U.S. mail at Facebook Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, c/o Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. What is the deadline for submitting a claim? If you submit a claim by U.S. mail, the completed and signed Claim Form must be postmarked by August 25, 2023. If submitting a Claim Form online, you must do so by 11:59 p.m. PDT on August 25, 2023. When will I get my payment? The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing for the Settlement of this case on September 7, 2023 at 1 p.m. PDT to consider: (1) whether to approve the Settlement; (2) any objections to the Settlement or any of its terms submitted to the Court; (3) the requests for awards to the Settlement Class Representatives; and (4) the request for an award of attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel for their work in this litigation. If the Court approves the Settlement, there may be appeals. It is always uncertain whether appeals will be filed and, if so, how long it will take to resolve them. Settlement payments will be distributed as soon as possible if the Court grants Final Approval of the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved. The briefs and declarations in support of the Final Approval of the Settlement and the requests described above will be posted on the Settlement Website, www.FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com, after they are filed. You may ask to appear at the Final Approval Hearing but you do not have to appear. The date and time of the Final Approval Hearing is also subject to modification by the Court. Please review the Settlement Website for any updated information regarding the Final Approval Hearing. THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU Do I have a lawyer in the case? Yes. The Court has appointed Derek W. Loeser of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Lesley E. Weaver of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP to represent the Settlement Class as Class Counsel. You will not be charged for their services. Derek W. Loeser Keller Rohrback L.L.P. 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Lesley E. Weaver Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 How will the lawyers be paid? Class Counsel will ask the Court for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund, as well as reasonable expenses incurred in the litigation. They will also ask the Court to approve a Service Award for each of the Settlement Class Representatives not to exceed $15,000 each. The Court may award less than these amounts. If approved, these fees, expenses and awards will be paid from the Settlement Fund. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT How do I opt out of the Settlement? If you do not want to receive any benefits from the Settlement, and you want to keep your right, if any, to separately sue the Defendant about the legal issues or factual allegations in this case, you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. This is called "opting out" of the Settlement Class. The deadline for requesting to opt out is July 26, 2023. To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may submit a completed and signed opt out request online at www.FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com or by U.S. mail at the below address. You may also submit a written request for exclusion by U.S. mail at the below address that includesthe following information: (i) the case name of the Action, In re: Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, Case No. 3:18-md-02843-VC (N.D. Cal.); (ii) your name and current address; (iii) your personal signature; (iv) a statement clearly indicating your intent to be excluded from the Settlement (the request can only be made for you, not on another person's behalf unless made by a person who has legal guardianship); (v) your Facebook account URL (if reasonably available) and the email address and telephone number associated with your Facebook account; and (vi) a statement that you were a Facebook user during the Class Period. Facebook Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation c/o Settlement Administrator Attn: Exclusion P.O. Box 58220 Philadelphia, PA 19102 If you exclude yourself, you are stating to the Court that you do not want to be part of the Settlement. You will not be eligible to receive a payment if you exclude yourself. You may only exclude yourself -- not any other person, unless that person is under your legal guardianship (such as a minor child). Opt-out requests seeking exclusion on behalf of more than one individual will be found invalid by the Settlement Administrator. If submitted electronically, your request to opt-out must be submitted and verified using a link sent to the email you provide with your opt-out request no later than 11:59 p.m. PDT on or before July 26, 2023. If submitted by U.S. mail, the written request to opt-out must be postmarked no later than July 26, 2023. How do I tell the Court if I like or do not like the Settlement? If you are a Settlement Class Member, you can choose to object to the Settlement if you do not like it or a portion of it. You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an objection. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. You can't ask the Court to order a different settlement; the Court can only approve or reject the settlement. If the Court denies approval, no settlement payments will be sent out, and the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you should object. Any comments or objections from Settlement Class Members regarding the proposed Settlement Agreement must be submitted in writing to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California; or by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and they must be filed or postmarked on or before July 26, 2023. Class Action Clerk United States District Court for the Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060 San Francisco, CA 94102-3489 Your objection must include: (i) the case name and number: In re: Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, Case No. 3:18-md-02843-VC (N.D. Cal.); (ii) your full name, address, telephone number, and email address; (iii) your Facebook account URL (if reasonably available) and the email address associated with your Facebook account; (iv) the full name, address, telephone number, and email address of your counsel (if you are represented by counsel); (v) a statement that you were a Facebook user during the Class Period and the dates of such use; (vi) a statement of whether your objection applies only to you, to a specific subset of the class, or to the entire class; (vii) a statement of the number of times in which you (and, where applicable, your counsel) have objected to a class action settlement, along with the caption of each case in which you (or your counsel) made such objection; (viii) a statement of whether the objector has sold or otherwise transferred the right to their recovery in this Action to another person or entity, and, if so, the identity of that person or entity; (ix) a statement of the specific grounds for the objection, including any legal or factual support and any evidence in support of the objection; (x) a statement of whether you intend to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, and if so, whether personally or through counsel; and (xi) your signature. These requirements may be excused by the Court upon a showing of good cause. You or your attorney may speak at the Final Approval Hearing about your objection. To do so, you must include a statement in your objection indicating whether you or your attorney intend to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. This requirement may be excused upon a showing of good cause. You may also appear at the Final Approval Hearing without submitting a written objection upon a showing of good cause. When is the Court's Final Approval Hearing? The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing at 1 p.m. PDT on September 7, 2023 The hearing will proceed by video conference. A link to the video conference is available at the following address: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/chhabria-vince-vc/. At the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider whether to approve Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as the Settlement Class Representatives' Service Awards. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. Judge Chhabria will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement. The date or time of the Final Approval Hearing may change. Please check the Settlement Website, www.FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com, for any updates, and to find out whether the Final Approval Hearing will be held in person or by video conference. How do I get more information? This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. Complete details are provided in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement and other related documents are available at the Settlement Website, www.FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com. If you have additional questions, you may contact the Settlement Administrator by email, phone, or mail: Email: info@FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com Toll-Free: 1-855-556-2233 Mail: Facebook Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, c/o Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Publicly filed documents can also be obtained by: -- accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov; -- reviewing the Court's online docket: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/chhabria-vincevc/in-re-facebook-inc-consumer-privacy-user-profile-litigation/; or -- visiting the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California at: Office of the Clerk, United States District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3489 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. Please do not telephone the Court, the Clerk's Office, or Meta to inquire about the Settlement or the Claims Process. MICHAEL KORS: Fails to Pay Wages on Time, Haley Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ BRITTANY HALEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL KORS STORES L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 606315/2023 (N.Y. Sup., April 19, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the New York Labor Law. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages for untimely wages for Plaintiff and her similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees who work or have worked for MK in New York between August 29, 2016 and March 23, 2023. Plaintiff Brittany Haley was employed by MK as an hourly worker from or around November 2021 through Feb. 4, 2022. Despite spending more than 25 percent of her shift performing physical tasks, Haley has been compensated by Defendant on a bi-weekly basis. Moreover, the Defendant violated the timely payment of wages provisions of the NYLL. Michael Kors Stores retails apparel and accessories. It offers several products including dresses, tops, jeans, skirts, outerwear, bags, wallets, footwear, watches for men and women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 MISSISSIPPI: Preliminary Injunction Entered in Bosarge v. Edney --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AMANDA BOSARGE, individually and on behalf of their minor children, et al., Plaintiffs v. DANIEL P. EDNEY, in his official capacity as the State Health Officer, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 1:22cv233-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On Sept. 1, 2022, Plaintiffs Amanda Bosarge, Jaquelyn Butler, Kimberly Harrell, William Morgan, Pastor Paul Perkins, Brandi Renfroe, and Dr. Jeana Stanley, individually and on behalf of their minor children, filed a Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Defendants Daniel P. Edney, in his official capacity as the State Health Officer; Lynn Fitch, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of Mississippi; Ashley Blackman, in her official capacity as Principal of East Central Lower Elementary School; Dr. Archie R. Mitchell, in his official capacity as Principal of Senatobia Elementary School; Allison Merit, in her official capacity as Principal of North Bay Elementary School; Dr. Ashley Allred, in her official capacity as Principal of Vancleave Upper Elementary School; and Douglas L. Tynes, in his official capacity as City Prosecutor for Ocean Springs, Mississippi. The Plaintiffs contend that Mississippi's mandatory vaccine statute requiring students to be vaccinated in order to attend public and private schools in the State of Mississippi violates their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs' minor children are unvaccinated due to their parents' religious beliefs. The Plaintiffs claim that due to Mississippi's compulsory vaccination law set forth at Mississippi Code Section 41-23-37, their children have not been allowed to enroll at public or private schools in the State of Mississippi. The Complaint asks the Court to: A. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents, servants, employees and any other persons acting on their behalf from implementing and enforcing the Compulsory Vaccination Law challenged in this Complaint without providing the option for a religious exemption; B. Declare that Miss. Code Section 41-23-37 is unconstitutional on its face; C. Declare that Miss. Code Section 41-23-37 is unconstitutional as applied to the Plaintiffs; D. Declare that Miss. Code Section 41-23-37 violates the Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to free exercise of religion; E. Grant the Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and any other applicable authority; and F. For any such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just under the circumstances. Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which came on for hearing on April 17, 2023. The Plaintiffs contend that the Compulsory Vaccination Law violates the First Amendment, both facially and as applied and they ask the Court to require the State to recognize religious exemptions in the same manner that it recognizes secular exceptions. In other words, they request that Mississippi families be afforded a process to seek a potential religious exemption, just as other families can seek a medical exemption. The Attorney General responds that, properly construed, Mississippi law does not violate the Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights because it already permits religious exemptions. She reasons that the Court should not consider the Compulsory Vaccination Law in isolation, but in tandem with the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("MRFRA"), Mississippi Code Section 11-61-1. According to her, the MRFRA requires the Mississippi State Department of Health ("MSDH") and local school authorities to offer the Plaintiffs the option of a religious exemption. Therefore, the case may only properly be viewed as an 'as-applied' challenge to Mississippi law. Based upon the plain language of the Compulsory Vaccination Law, Judge Ozerden is persuaded that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits on their facial challenge under the Free Exercise Clause and that the MRFRA does not salvage the statute from its constitutional infirmity. He also finds that the Plaintiffs have offered evidence and testimony that the State's policy of not permitting religious exemptions has burdened their sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring them to vaccinate their children before they may attend school in this State. At the preliminary injunction stage, he finds that this is sufficient for Plaintiffs to carry their burden of demonstrating the likelihood of success on the merits of their as-applied challenge. Moreover, Judge Ozerden finds that placing the Plaintiffs in the position of deciding between these two choices is sufficient to demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely absent an injunction. In addition, the Plaintiffs are irreparably harmed by the loss of free exercise rights for even minimal periods of time. The Plaintiffs have also carried their burden of persuasion as to all four elements of their request for preliminary injunction. Their Motion is therefore well taken and is granted. However, Judge Ozerden determines the proper scope of the preliminary injunction. He is persuaded that it would not be appropriate to preliminarily enjoin the Attorney General and Defendant Douglas L. Tynes, in his official capacity as City Prosecutor for Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Any preliminary injunction should be directed to Defendants Dr. Daniel P. Edney, as the State Health Officer, and to Defendants Ashley Blackman, Allison Merit, and Dr. Ashley Allred, in their official capacities as principals of the schools in question. To the extent Judge Ozerden has not addressed any of the parties' remaining arguments, he has considered them and determined that they would not alter the result. He grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to the extent it seeks a preliminary injunction. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), Defendants Daniel P. Edney, in his official capacity as the State Health Officer; Ashley Blackman, in her official capacity as Principal of East Central Lower Elementary School; Allison Merit, in her official capacity as Principal of North Bay Elementary School; and Dr. Ashley Allred, in her official capacity as Principal of Vancleave Upper Elementary School, their officers, agents, servants, and employees, and anyone acting in active concert or participation with them (the "Enjoined Parties"), are preliminarily enjoined as follows: 1. Effective July 15, 2023, the Enjoined Parties will be enjoined from enforcing the Compulsory Vaccination Law unless they provide an option for requesting a religious exemption. 2. By July 15, 2023, Defendant State Health Officer Dr. Daniel P. Edney will develop a process by which persons may request a religious exemption from the Compulsory Vaccination Law, and the Mississippi State Department of Health will make the process or any forms related to it available on its website. 3. Thereafter, while this preliminary injunction remains in effect, a person may seek a religious exemption to the Compulsory Vaccination Law by requesting a religious exemption pursuant to the process developed by the Mississippi State Department of Health. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bp9acf7w from Leagle.com. MMM CONSUMER: Court OK's Oral Argument on Bid to Compel Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eppes, et al. v. MMM Consumer Brands Inc. d/b/a Marley Spoon, Case No. 1:22-cv-06341-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting Defendant's request for oral argument concerning its motion to compel arbitration or, alternatively, to deny class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AjIcYm at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Grohs, Esq. SAIBER LLC 132 West 31st Street, 9th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (332) 240-1350 E-mail: mgrohs@saiber.com NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Local Police Act With Racial Bias, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Lane at wshu.org reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all Black and Latino drivers in Nassau County claiming local police act with racial bias when they make traffic stops. The lawsuit seeks $40 million, policy changes and a federal monitor to ensure Nassau follows through with reforms. A judge's decision on whether to certify the lawsuit's class action status will come later. A similar lawsuit started eight years ago in Suffolk County that recently cost the county millions of dollars and forced Suffolk County Police Department to improve training and publish better data on how it enforces the law "The potential outcomes would be to force Nassau to stop this discriminatory and race-based policing that's taking place, particularly with regard to car stops," said Frederick Brewington, the civil rights lawyer who brought the lawsuit. Neither County Executive Bruce Blakeman nor the police department responded to messages. At a hearing last year, Nassau County Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder said his officers stop a disproportionate number of people of color because people of color come to Nassau from New York City "to commit some kind of criminal act." "We're going where we're being asked to go," Ryder said at a different hearing last November. "We spent a lot of time in Green Acres mall this year, because we were getting hit pretty hard, with a lot of larcenies and grand larcenies in the malls." New data posted to the county's website this month continues to show Black and Latino drivers are stopped, searched and ticketed at much higher rates than white drivers. While Black and Latino people make up 29% of Nassau residents, they make up 61% of arrests, 50% of traffic stops, 60% of field interviews and 69% of the pat downs according to police data. White drivers get an average of 1.3 tickets per stop. Black and Latino drivers get an average of 2 and 2.1 tickets per stop, respectively. The lawsuit was filed in November by Tivia Leith, a Black woman who says she was stopped by Nassau Police with her infant son and detained for 11 hours with no charges ever being filed. A federal judge allowed Leith to refile the lawsuit, this time as a class action.[GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Fitzmorris Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Emily Fitzmorris, et al., v. New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Lori Weaver, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025-PB (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Paul J. Barbadoro entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "CFI Waiver participants who, during the pendency of this lawsuit, have been placed at serious risk of unjustified institutionalization because Defendants, by act or omission, fail to ensure that the CFI participants receive the community-based long term care services and supports through the waiver program for which they have been found eligible and assessed to need." The outstanding motions to strike are denied as moot. Should the plaintiffs wish to file a renewed motion for class certification, they are instructed to do so within 14 days of entry of this order, the Court Says. Because the plaintiffs' theory of commonality is untenable as presented, but nonetheless may be redeemed with proper evidentiary support, I deny the plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to their ability to file a renewed motion within 14 days, supported by evidence of drivers common to either the class as a whole or discrete subclasses, the Court adds. The plaintiffs in this putative class action are disabled individuals who are enrolled in New Hampshire's Choices for Independence (CFI) waiver program, a Medicaid program administered by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The CFI waiver program provides home and community-based care services to adults who otherwise would be Medicaid-eligible for nursing home care. The plaintiffs claim that DHHS has failed to operate the CFI waiver program in a way that ensures participants receive all of their authorized services. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against DHHS and its Commissioner, alleging that the defendants' systemic failure to provide CFI waiver participants with their authorized services violates the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41PMZMH at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK LIFE: Filing of Bid for Class Certification Due June 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stuart Krohnengold, Wayne Antoine, Lee Webber, Anthony Medici, Joseph Bendrihem, Larry Gilbert, Rafael Musni, Thomas Lantz, Sandra Scanni, and Claudia Gonzalez, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the New York Life Insurance Employee Progress Sharing Investment Plan, and the New York Life Insurance Company Agents Progress Sharing Plan, v. New York Life Insurance Company; the Fiduciary Investment Committee; the Board of Trustees; Katherine O’Brien; Anthony R. Malloy; Yie-Hsin Hung; Arthur A. Seter; Scott L. Lenz; Robert J. Hynes; and John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 1:21-cv-01778-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order modifying civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- Motion for Class Certification June 26, 2023 -- Opposition to Class Certification Aug. 10, 2023 -- Reply in Support of Class Aug. 31, 2023 Certification -- Parties to discuss settlement Sept. 1, 2023 -- Requests for Admission Nov. 15, 2023 New York Life operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life insurance, wealth management, estate and retirement planning. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41xxlps at no extra charge.[CC] NEWREZ LLC: Yates Submits Supplemental Brief for Class Status Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE YATES, On behalf of herself individually and on behalf of two classes of similarly situated persons, v. NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING Case No. 8:21-cv-03044-TDC (D. Md.), the Plaintiff Irene Yates provides the Court with a supplemental brief in support of her motion for class certification, along with the additional, relevant discovery. Shellpoint's principal defense to class certification, therefore, after its fanciful limitations argument for class members who were assessed inspection fees before 2018 is rejected, is that data searches for whether the charges actually appeared on mortgage statements would not be "granular. " Nevertheless, Shellpoint can actually identify granular information with a couple of simple codes whether inspection fees in 2018 were logged as "borrower recoverable, " and has already done so by and large. In addition, Shellpoint has a legal duty to report such information to the OCFR within 10 days in an "organized, electronic format" whether such fees have been imposed on Maryland borrowers, and later reclassified. So, based upon the totality of the record before the Court, there is no just basis to conclude Shellpoint cannot do the same for purposes of Class certification in this action. The Plaintiff sought leave to file this supplemental brief to address certain documentary and testimony evidence that Defendant NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing failed to provide in discovery until after Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification had been filed, and to provide relevant testimony from follow-up depositions of Shellpoint's designee and authorized agents. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3V1nIwN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Borison, Esq. BORISON FIRM LLC 1400 S. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21230 Telephone: (301) 620-1016 E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com - and - Phillip R. Robinson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC 10125 Colesville Road, Suite 378 Silver Spring, MD 20901 Telephone: (301) 448-1304 E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com - and - Thomas J. Minton, Esq. GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C. 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 201 Baltimore, MD 21211 Telephone: (410) 783-7575 E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com NVIDIA CORPORATION: Davenport Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NVIDIA Corporation. The case is styled as Carlton Davenport, Quang Ho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-01877-BLF (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. NVIDIA Corporation -- https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/ -- is an American multinational technology company incorporated in Delaware and based in Santa Clara, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Gubernick, Esq. Gubernick Law PLLC 10720 W. Indian School Rd., Suite 19 PMB 12 Phoenix, AZ 85037 Phone: (734) 678-5169 Email: ben@gubernicklaw.com - and - Jill Michelle Manning, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1205 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 433-9000 Email: jmanning@pwfirm.com - and - Naveed Abaie, Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Email: nabaie@pwfirm.com dwarshaw@pwfirm.com OHIO ALUMINUM: Johnson Sues Over Manufacturing Employees' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN JOHNSON, 505 Center Rd. Bedford, Ohio 44146, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OHIO ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00807 (N.D. Ohio, April 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff John Johnson was employed as a manufacturing employee at Defendant's Garfield Heights facility between August 2022 and February 2023. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to pay Johnson and other similarly situated manufacturing employees for all time worked and overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. Johnson and other similarly situated employees were not paid for the time spent in changing into and out of their personal protective equipment, including steel toe boots, gloves, safety glasses, arm shields and a face mask; and/or walking to and from their assigned area of the manufacturing floor, says the suit. Ohio Aluminum Industries, Inc. is a foundry that produces aluminum castings. Its principal place of business is in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kapitan, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com OPTIMUM: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Kvinikadze Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUKA KVINIKADZE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTIMUM, CSC HOLDINGS, LLC, ALTICE USA, INC., ASI FIBER GROUP, and GUREEV LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02922 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2023), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. From around May 1, 2022, through June 10, 2022, the Plaintiff was employed to do manual work as a cable layer, installing fiber optic cable in New York for Optimum by virtue of subcontractor agreements through ASI Fiber Group, and Gureev LLC. Allegedly, the Defendants unlawfully denied Plaintiff and the putative collective and classes payment of actual wages earned and overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, failed to pay minimum wage for all hours worked, failed to compensate for spread of hours, failed to reimburse business expenses, failed to pay Plaintiff on a weekly basis, failed to furnish accurate wage statements, and engaged in various other recordkeeping practices and notice failures that violated both federal and state laws, says the suit. Optimum is incorporated under the laws of the state of Florida and is registered to do business as a domestic business corporation in the state of New York. The company provides cable television, high-speed internet, telephone, and mobile phone services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. Rachel M. Haskell, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 430-7930 Facsimile: (646) 349-2504 PACIFICORP: Trial in Class Suit Over Widespread Wildfires Begins ---------------------------------------------------------------- blog.cvn.com reports that a class action lawsuit accusing Berkshire Hathaway-owned electric power company PacifiCorp of responsibility for widespread wildfires begins in Oregon state court, and the proceedings will be webcast gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network. Plaintiffs accuse the utility of failure to properly maintain its power lines and neglecting to cut power during a historic windstorm on the evening of Labor Day in 2020. The blaze ultimately affected roughly 2,500 properties, but PacifiCorp has denied any liability for the incident and maintained the fires were the result of an unavoidable natural disaster. The company could face substantial damages in the case after the presiding judge in late March permitted plaintiffs to seek punitive damages at trial in addition to compensatory damages for housing losses, relocation costs and emotional distress. Plaintiffs generally face a high bar to certify a class, and a class action then proceeding all the way to a jury trial is relatively rare event. As such both sides will be represented by some of the country's top law firms at the sprawling eight-week trial, which will take place before Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Steffan Alexander. The plaintiff class is represented by Edelson PC, Keller Rohrback LLP and Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC. PacifiCorp is represented by Stoel Rives LLP and by Hueston Hennigan LLP. The case is James, et al. v. PacifiCorp., case number 20CV33885 in Multnomah County Circuit Court. [GN] PARKER HANNIFIN: Data Breach Suit Reaches $1.75M Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that Parker Hannifin agreed to a $1.75 million class action settlement to resolve claims that a March 2022 data breach compromised employee information. The settlement benefits current and former Parker Hannifin employees who received a letter notifying them of the March 2022 data breach. According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Parker Hannifin negligently failed to protect the digital privacy of its current and former employees from the 2022 data breach. The incident allegedly compromised sensitive employee data including Social Security numbers, health insurance information and more. Parker Hannifin is a manufacturing company that provides products for many industries including aerospace, healthcare, power, transportation and others. Parker-Hannifin hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.75 million to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the damages they experienced as a result of the data breach. The settlement allows for up to $5,000 in reimbursement for data breach-related expenses — including $250 for each verified incident of fraud linked to the data breach. Class members can also claim up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour, for a maximum lost time payment of $100. Class members who were residents of California at the time of the data breach can receive an additional $100 payment from the settlement. Any residual settlement funds will be used to make a pro rata settlement payment to class members, estimated to be around $50. Actual pro rata payments may be higher or lower depending on the amount left over after claims are paid. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 14, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug. 2, 2023. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 14, 2023. Who's Eligible Current and former Parker Hannifin employees who received a letter notifying them of the March 2022 data breach. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Account statements, receipts, tax documents, etc. More information on the documentation required for each type of claim can be found on the claim form. 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 07/14/2023 Case Name Christiansen, et al. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-00835-DAP, in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Ohio Final Hearing 08/02/2023 Settlement Website PHDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Migliaccio v. Parker Hannifin Settlement c/o Kroll Settlement Administration PO Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 info@phdatasettlement.com 833-630-4779 [GN] PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Parties in Wilson Stipulate Settlement Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties stipulate agreement of settlement as follows: -- On April 29, 2021, an initial putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. -- On May 24, 2021, Leigh Drori brought a securities class action lawsuit against the Defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, styled Leigh Drori, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., John Foley, and Jill Woodworth, Case No. 1:21-cv-02925(CBA)(PK). -- On October 26, 2021, Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo recommended that the motion be granted, that the actions be consolidated, that Richard Neswick be appointed as lead plaintiff, and that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP be appointed as lead counsel. ECF No. 37. On November 16, 2021, Judge Amon adopted the report and recommendation in full, consolidating the cases and appointing Plaintiff Richard Neswick as Lead Plaintiff and appointing Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Lead Counsel. -- On January 21, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. The Complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against Defendants, alleging that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions. The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the price of Peloton common stock was artificially inflated during the putative Class Period as a result of the allegedly false and misleading statements, and declined when the truth was alleged to have been revealed on March 18, 2021, April 17, 2021, and May 5, 2021. -- On June 8, 2022, the Court held oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, and reserved decision on the motion to dismiss. -- On December 15, 2022, while the Defendants' motion to dismiss remained pending, the Parties participated in a lengthy mediation session, conducted by David Murphy of Phillips ADR, a well- respected and highly experienced mediator and former securities litigator, to explore a potential negotiated resolution of the claims in the Action. -- On December 15, 2022, the Parties filed a letter motion to stay the Action and vacate any pre-trial deadlines in light of the settlement-in-principle, which the Court granted on December 16, 2022. -- The Defendants deny, and continue to deny, each and every one of the claims alleged by Lead Plaintiff in the Action on behalf of the Settlement Class, including all claims in the complaints filed in the Action. Defendants have asserted and continue to assert that their public statements during the putative Class Period contained no material misstatements or omissions, and that at all times, they acted in good faith and in a manner they reasonably believed to be in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations, and laws. Peloton is an American exercise equipment and media company based in New York City. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43V1lNE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Whitney B. Weber, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: whitney.weber@lw.com PRIME RANGERS: Griner Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES GRINER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME RANGERS, INC., RANGERS ENTERPRISE SATELLITE LLC, and RINNEL WILLIAMS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01760-LMM (N.D. Ga., April 18, 2023) arises out of Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rangers Enterprise and Williams employed Plaintiff Charles Griner as a satellite technician and installer during the approximate period from March 2019 through July 2021. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to correctly calculate and pay Griner and similarly situated satellite technicians overtime wages three years prior to filing this complaint, April 19, 2020, through the present. The Defendants did not pay Griner and similarly situated employees overtime wages at 1.5 times their regular pay rate for hours worked in excess of 40 during the workweek. Moreover, Griner seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, says the suit. Prime Rangers is a Georgia corporation with its principal office address on file with the Georgia Secretary of State as 1609 Meredith Park Dr, McDonough, Georgia. [BN The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Hall, Esq. Gordon Van Remmen, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Parkway Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com gordon@hallandlampros.com PULTE HOME: Mount, et al., Lose Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY MASSEY MOUNT; TERESA JOHNSON; SHAQUATAN NICOLE FLEMMING; QUINEISHA HYLTON; and NATHANIEL JACKSON, v. PULTE HOME COMPANY, LLC; and S&ME, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-02314-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton Jr. entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 2. denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, where all claims will proceed to trial; 3. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to exclude Bloom; a. The motions are granted in that Bloom's opinion on restoration damages estimates is excluded; and b. In all other respects, the motions are denied; and 4. granting the Defendants motions to exclude Ranson and Hickson; a. Ranson and Hickson will only be permitted to testify as lay witnesses. Hickson is an engineer for FDOT whom Plaintiffs called for deposition as FDOT's Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative. The Defendants' motion to exclude his expert testimony is another easy call: Plaintiffs did not disclose him as an expert until months past the expert disclosure deadline and even a week past the overall discovery deadline. The case involves the flooding of the Oakland Tildenville Cemetery, a historically Black cemetery located off of Colonial Drive in the small town of Oakland in the greater Orlando area. In 2017, a development company made plans to build a residential subdivision called Longleaf in Oakland near the cemetery; Defendant Pulte Home Company, LLC, another builder, soon took over the development. Longleaf surrounded the cemetery from the north, east, and west, with Colonial to the south. S&ME did the engineering and design, including stormwater drainage design, for Longleaf. In May 2019, after Longleaf was complete but about a year before the flood in question, there was some flooding in the cemetery. The Defendants denied that they caused this flood but responded by further excavating the retention pond to "add capacity to the system" and considered adding a water pump. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43TO2NA at no extra charge.[CC] RECKITT BENCKISER: July 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Reckitt Securities Settlement: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. RECKITT BENCKISER GROUP PLC, RAKESH KAPOOR, and SHAUN THAXTER, Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-10041-PKC CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED RECKITT BENCKISER GROUP PLC ("RECKITT" OR THE "COMPANY") AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADSs") DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 28, 2014 THROUGH APRIL 9, 2019, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on July 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable P. Kevin Castel at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") for $19,600,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and to award Lead Plaintiff reimbursement of its time and expenses pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) in connection with its representation of the Class, and, if so, in what amounts; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear remotely at the hearing, without further written notice to the Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement website, www.ReckittSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.ReckittSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement Hearing by remote means, the information for accessing the hearing will be posted to the Settlement website, www.ReckittSecuritiesSettlement.com. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED RECKITT ADSs FROM JULY 28, 2014 THROUGH APRIL 9, 2019, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than July 7, 2023) or electronically (no later than July 7, 2023). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by July 7, 2023, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you purchased or acquired Reckitt ADSs from July 28, 2014 through April 9, 2019, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at www.ReckittSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to: Reckitt Securities Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (800) 449-4900 IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY JUNE 28, 2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 33% OF THE $19,600,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $600,000 AND AN AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 IN CONNECTION WITH ITS REPRESENTATION OF THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY JUNE 28, 2023, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: MARCH 16, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.ReckittSecuritiesSettlement.com. Contacts Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Shareholder Relations Department Greg Wood (619) 231-1058 RELIANCE VITAMIN: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Costa Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TAYLOR COSTA, Plaintiff v. RELIANCE VITAMIN CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04679-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Reliance's motion to dismiss the claims. Costa filed an amended complaint in this putative class action on behalf of herself and a class of California consumers, alleging that Reliance misleadingly packages and sells its protein powder in containers that are unnecessarily large and contain unlawful "slack fill." The First Amended Complaint asserts seven claims under California law: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of California's False and Misleading Advertising Laws ("FAL"), Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500, et seq.; (3) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CRLA"), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq.; (4) breach of express and implied warranty; (5) fraudulent inducement and intentional misrepresentation; (6) negligent misrepresentation; and (7) unjust enrichment and restitution. Costa brings the claims on behalf of herself and a class of California consumers. Reliance filed its motion to dismiss the FAC and a request for judicial notice, ("RFJN 1"). Costa filed her opposition. Reliance filed a reply and another request for judicial notice, ("RFJN 2"). Under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), Judge Orrick finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and so vacates the hearing scheduled for April 19, 2023. First, the vast majority of the parties' briefing addresses the reasonable consumer standard under the UCL, FAL, and CRLA. Though Judge Orrick previously dismissed these claims for failure to meet the reasonable consumer standard, he finds that with the additional and amended allegations in her FAC, Costa has now pleaded that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by Reliance's product and packaging. Accordingly, Reliance's motion is denied as to this argument. Next, Judge Orrick also denies Reliance's motion as to claim for intentional misrepresentation. He holds that allegations of intent are even stronger now in the FAC. Additionally, Costa's new allegations sufficiently plead justifiable reliance because she alleges that a reasonable consumer would not or would be unable to synthesize the disparate information on the label to understand how much protein powder they would receive in one container, and that the disparate information is insufficient to dispel the deception created by the slack fill and size of the container. Combined with the allegations that it was reasonable and justifiable to instead rely on the size of the container when making the purchasing decision, Costa pleads the final element of intentional misrepresentation under California law. Reliance then argues that Costa's claims of intentional and negligent misrepresentation are barred by the economic loss doctrine. Judge Orrick holds that Costa's negligent misrepresentation claim and injury arise from the underlying "contract" -- the purchase of the allegedly deceptive product -- which is barred by the economic loss doctrine. Accordingly, Costa's negligent misrepresentation claim is dismissed with prejudice because in this context, Costa cannot plead a negligent misrepresentation that will survive the economic loss rule. However, Judge Orrick holds that Costa sufficiently pleads that Reliance's intentional misrepresentations were both intentional and intended to harm. Taken together, this is sufficient to plead an intentional misrepresentation claim that is not barred by the economic loss rule. Judge Orrick also finds that the size of the container can constitute an express warranty. He finds that Costa sufficiently pleaded breach of express warranty. Finally, Reliance moves to dismiss Costa's CRLA claims for failure to include the required affidavit. Costa subsequently filed the required affidavit. Reliance does not discuss the CRLA claim in its reply. To the extent that Reliance maintains its motion to dismiss the CRLA claim, it is denied. For these reasons, Reliance's motion is granted in part and denied in part. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wkz3rtte from Leagle.com. RUZE INC: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Toro Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW TORO, v. RUZE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02982-JPO-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. -- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. -- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N5AJne at no extra charge.[CC] S2E INC: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against S2E, Inc. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. S2E, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03240 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. s2e -- https://www.s2etech.com/ -- develops sustainable housing communities in North America using green building practices and state-of-the-art technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal SNAP NURSE: Ramirez Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, v. SNAP NURSE, INC., Case No. e 1:21-cv-00762-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3), appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and appointing her counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). SnapNurse is an on-demand Nurse booking app. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oBY4mo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq. SHIVER HAMILTON CAMPBELL, LLC 3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (470) 990-7166 E-mail: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com - and - Gary F. Easom, Esq. THE EASOM FIRM Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32004 Telephone: (904) 894-3094 E-mail: easom76@gmail.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. Sara J. Watkins, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com swatkins@peircelaw.com - and - Daniel Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com SOCIETE AIR FRANCE: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Kaur Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Navneet Kaur, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Societe Air France, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02927 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2023) alleges that Societe Air France violated the New York Labor Law and the accompanying provisions of New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. Plaintiff Navneet Kaur worked for Defendant beginning in or around August 2019 until on or about March 22, 2023. Kaur also worked as a passenger service agent for the majority of her employment with Defendant until on or around October 2022 when she transferred to a new position as a quote desk representative in Defendant's cargo department. Kaur and the class worked for Societe Air France as airport operations associates; passenger service agents; cargo associates; ramp service agents; mechanics; and engineers. They performed physical labor more than 25 percent of the time; however, they were paid bi-weekly instead of weekly as required by law. Air France also violated the law when requiring these workers to wear a uniform, but failing to pay workers required uniform maintenance pay when the worker's hourly rate was minimum wage or close to minimum wage. Likewise, Air France failed to pay the required spread of hours pay to employees who worked a shift of split-shift in excess of ten hours per day while being paid a regular hourly rate that was the minimum wage or close thereto, says the suit. Headquartered in France, Societe Air France is listed in New York State Department Division of Corporations records as a foreign business corporation with its service of process listed as 80 State Street, Albany, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810, New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com SPEAR WILDERMAN: Faces Class Action Over 2021 Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action claims negligence on the part of Spear Wilderman, P.C. resulted in a "foreseeable" 2021 data breach that compromised the personal information of at least tens of thousands of people. The 44-page case says that Spear Wilderman, a union-side labor law firm, discovered on May 7, 2021 that an unauthorized party had infiltrated its systems. The lawsuit states that those who were impacted by the cyberattack—current and former clients and certain parties or witnesses to legal matters in which the firm was involved—had the following information, and potentially more, exposed during the breach: Names; Addresses; Dates of birth; Employment positions; Pay amounts; Driver's license numbers; Social Security numbers; Account numbers; Credit card numbers; Routing numbers; Account balances; and/or Account statuses. According to the lawsuit, cybercriminals were able to "easily" hack Spear Wilderman's network because the law firm stored personal information in a database that could be accessed without a password or multifactor authentication. The complaint alleges that victims' unencrypted information has already been listed for sale on the dark web, exposing them to a "substantial and imminent" risk of identity theft and fraud. The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, says that money was fraudulently withdrawn from his bank account using his name, Social Security number and account information nearly two years after the data breach occurred. "Given the theft of information that is largely static— like Social Security numbers—this risk will remain with Plaintiff and Class Members for the rest of their lives," the filing emphasizes. To make matters worse, the case says, Spear Wilderman waited until November 16, 2022 to inform affected individuals that their information had been stolen, roughly 18 months after the cyberattack was purportedly discovered by the firm. Per the suit, the law firm knew or should have known that it had a legal duty to properly safeguard consumers' data from unauthorized access yet nevertheless failed to implement so much as "basic" cybersecurity measures that could have prevented the cyberattack, such as password protection, encryption or multifactor authentication. The lawsuit seeks to represent anyone whose private information was actually or potentially accessed or acquired during the data breach event that is the subject of the data breach notice that Spear Wilderman, P.C. published to the plaintiff and other class members on or around November 16, 2022. [GN] ST. LOUIS, MO: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK JONES, JEROME JONES, MARRELL WITHERS, and DARNELL RUSAN, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00600-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for additional time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(A) Fed. R. Civ. On April 7, 2023, the Plaintiff's filed their motion Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C) proposing narrower class definitions and renewing motion for class certification. The Defendants' response to motion is due April 17, 2023. Due to the press of business within the City of St. Louis Counselor's Office and some counsels for Defendants being out-of-town, Defendants require additional time to properly respond to said Plaintiffs’ motion up to and including Friday, April 21, 2023. On April 14, 2023, Counsel for Defendants discussed Defendants' request for additional time up to and including Friday, April 21, 2023 with Counsels for the Plaintiffs and they indicated the Plaintiffs' consent to the Defendants' request for additional time. St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi River. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H8VjiG at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lawrence Pratt, Esq. ASSOCIATE CITY COUNSELOR 1200 Market St. City Hall, Rm 314 St. Louis, MO 63103 Telephone: (314) 622-3361 Facsimile: (314) 622-4956 E-mail: PrattL@stlouis-mo.gov TASTE SALUD LLC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taste Salud, LLC. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Taste Salud, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03242-GHW (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Taste Salud, LLC -- https://tastesalud.com/ -- offers Salud Hydration + Immunity Drink Mix packed full of powerful benefits to support hydration and improve immune health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com TD BANK: Filing of Class Cert. Bid in Nelipa Due August 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelipa v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01092 (E.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Ramon E Reyes, Jr., entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery -- Terminate Deadlines and Hearings. -- Motion for Class Certification is due by Aug. 31, 2023. The nature of suit states breach of contract. TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group.[CC] TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phan Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG PHAN, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order denying the application to file supplemental briefing and denying motion for class certification without prejudice: -- The Class "All past, present, and future owners or beneficiaries of Defendant's life insurance policies in force on or after January 1, 2013 and governed by Sections 10113.71 and/or 10113.72, where the policies underwent or will undergo lapse, termination, and/or reinstatement without Defendant first providing written notice of and an actual 60-day grace period, a 30-day notice of pending lapse and termination, and/or an annual notice of a right to designate at least one other person to receive notice of lapse or termination of a policy for nonpayment of premium." -- The Elder Abuse Sub-Class: "All members of the Class defined above who were also 65 years of age or older at the time the policy lapse [sic] or terminated. The Court modifies the case schedule to allow for a renewed motion for class certification to be filed by May 19, 2023. The Court will determine at a later date whether postponement of the remainder of the case schedule would be required. This will allow the parties to fully brief the issues. A supplemental brief by Defendant would not be helpful without a motion for class certification that is consistent with Plaintiff's changed requests. The Court denies Defendant's Application for leave to file a supplemental brief. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling a new motion for class certification consistent with Plaintiff's position in her Reply brief. And to the extent that any changed theory of the case would require the filing of an amended complaint, the Plaintiff shall seek leave of court to do so prior to filing a renewed motion for class certification. On April 12, 2023, the Defendant filed an ex parte application for leave to file supplemental briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action including declaratory relief or judgment under California statute; declaratory relief or judgment under federal statute; breach of contract; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and (5) financial elder abuse in violation of California statute. Transamerica Premier is a life insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3owo6Y9 at no extra charge.[CC] TREND AND TIPSY: Gilburd Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trend and Tipsy Incorporated. The case is styled as Rachael Gilburd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trend and Tipsy Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00647-SMB (D. Ariz., April 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Trend and Tipsy -- https://trendyandtipsy.com/ -- is a boutique that torches the old rulebook of fashion and provides customers with all the latest trends and fashion, vintage, and restored one-of-a-kind Last Call vintage pieces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com TUFIN SOFTWARE: Case Proceedings, All Existing Deadlines Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE TUFIN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-05646-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order granting stay of the proceedings and all existing deadlines. Accordingly, the Court considers the pending motion withdrawn by the parties. The parties may refile that motion after the stay is lifted if the parties have not sought dismissal of this action by then. The parties are directed to file a joint letter no later than June 17, 2023, informing the Court of the status of this matter. This letter is filed jointly on behalf of all parties pursuant to Rule 1(E) of your Honor's Individual Practices to request an adjournment sine die of all deadlines in this matter in light of the parties' pending settlement agreement. As the Court is aware, on April 11, 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter. The parties are currently working toward a mutually acceptable long form Stipulation and Settlement Agreement which will be submitted for the Court's approval. The parties expect that it will take several weeks to finalize all terms of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, including the form of notice required to be provided to class members. Accordingly, to facilitate the parties' settlement negotiations and conserve the resources of the Court and the parties, the parties respectfully request an adjournment sine die of all outstanding deadlines in this action. Tufin develops security software. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43X3Yyt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 4th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com aapton@zlk.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ctourek@pomlaw.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Brent LaPointe, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com blapointe@rosenlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Glenn M. Kurtz, Esq. Kim A. Havlin, Esq. Susan L. Grace, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 E-mail: gkurtz@whitecase.com kim.havlin@whitecase.com susan.grace@whitecase.com UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Simmons Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Samantha Simmons, Ansleigh Walters, Marykay Thrower, Jackie Spivey, Laura Martson, Chrissie Humenny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-23376 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on April 18, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00491-OAW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Unilever United States, Inc. -- http://www.unileverusa.com/-- manufactures personal care products. The Company offers , laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes.[BN] UNILEVER UNITED: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Pardini's Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KYM PARDINI, CARRIE WOOD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-16806 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims because the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act expressly preempts them. Over 125 years ago, the Supreme Court decided whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable in Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 307 (1893) (the answer: a vegetable). In a more modern iteration of this legal genre, the Ninth Circuit now decides, in effect, whether the product "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! Spray" is a butter or a spray. The question turns out to matter because the Plaintiff consumers contend that the product's label makes misrepresentations about fat and calorie content based on artificially low serving sizes. The lawsuit is a consumer class action challenging the labels on I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! Spray. "Butter! Spray" is part of the "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!" product line, consisting of margarine foods and vegetable oil spreads that are marketed as healthier alternatives to butter. The implication of the well-known brand name is that the product tastes so much like butter that one could not believe it wasn't. Launched in 1994, Butter! Spray is a "butter-flavored vegetable oil" dispensed in "pump-action squirt bottles" with a "spray mechanism." The Plaintiffs allege it is used by consumers interchangeably with butter. The lawsuit, brought against then-manufacturer Unilever, alleges that Butter! Spray's nutrient content claims are misleading because they are based on unrepresentative serving sizes. When a product's FDA-designated serving size contains amounts of calories and fat that are below certain thresholds, federal regulations allow (and in some instances require) the product to be labeled as having zero calories or fat per serving. The Plaintiffs allege that an entire 12-ounce bottle of Butter! Spray contains 1,160 calories and 124 grams of fat. They claim that because the serving sizes on Butter! Spray are "artificially small," Butter! Spray is not, in fact, "0 fat" or "0 calories" per serving. The Plaintiffs allege that consumers have expressed confusion and frustration upon learning that larger servings of the product contain non-negligible amounts of calories and fat. Had they known "the true nature" of Butter! Spray, they would not have purchased the product or would have paid less for it. Advancing state law causes of action, the Plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class of consumers who had purchased Butter! Spray. After several rounds of proceedings, the district court, under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims based on serving size and nutrient content. The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Butter! Spray was not a "spray type" fat or oil under FDA regulations. The Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), thus, preempted their serving size claims. And because the nutrient content claims were predicated on the serving size claims, those claims also failed on preemption grounds. Proceedings on other claims not at issue here ended in the denial of class certification and summary judgment against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of only their serving size and nutrient content claims, which the district court found preempted. The Ninth Circuit reviews the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion de novo, construing the allegations of the complaint in the Plaintiffs' favor. To decide the preemption question, the Ninth Circuit must resolve, based on the allegations in the complaint, whether, as a matter of law, Butter! Spray should be classified as a butter/oil or a spray. As a matter of legal classification, it finds that it is a spray. Although the Plaintiffs claim there are factual disputes at play here, in truth they simply disagree with the FDA's framework for how these types of products should be labeled. These arguments may be readily addressed -- and readily rejected -- at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that, if Butter! Spray is properly labeled as a "spray type" fat or oil with a serving size approximating 0.25 grams (here 0.2 grams), its calorie and fat content representations also comply with federal law. Because the Plaintiffs' challenge to the Butter! Spray serving sizes would directly or indirectly establish a requirement for food labeling that is "not identical" to federal requirements, the FDCA preempts their serving size claims. It follows that the Plaintiffs' claims about fat and calorie content are preempted as well. If the Plaintiffs (or the dissent) believe that the FDA should not allow products to be labeled as containing zero fat or calories when a given serving size may contain some of each, the Ninth Circuit opines that they may raise that issue with the agency. This argument cannot overcome the FDCA's express preemption provision. In sum, the Ninth Circuit holds that the information on the product's label complies with federal food labeling requirements for "spray type" fats and oils. The product is a spray under federal regulations, and it was labeled accordingly. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5f9hruuh from Leagle.com. Ureka E. Idstrom (argued) -- info@eurekalawfirm.com -- The Eureka Law Firm, Kansas City, Missouri; Justin T. Berger -- jberger@cpmlegal.com -- and Sarvenaz J. Fahimi -- sfahimi@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Burlingame, California, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. James R. Sigel (argued) -- jsigel@mofo.com -- and Claudia M. Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, California; Adam L. Sorensen -- sorensen@virginia.edu -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, D.C.; Megan Whipp -- mwhipp@whipplaw.com -- The Law Office of Megan L. Whipp PC., Beverly Hills, California, for the Defendant-Appellee. UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks Approval of Administrative Bid to Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERIDIAN TREATMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., DESERT COVE RECOVERY, LLC, and HARMONY HOLLYWOOD, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH (operating as OPTUMHEALTH BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS), Case No. 4:19-cv-05721-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its administrative motion to seal. UBH applies for leave of Court pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79-5(c) to affirmatively file under seal portions of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Unredacted versions of all documents are also submitted herewith. These exhibits contain patient health information (PHI) or personal identifying information (PII) pertaining to Plaintiffs' patients or third parties. In light of the Ninth Circuit's heightened standard for sealing documents relating to class certification, UBH seeks only to affirmatively seal PHI and PII relating to Plaintiffs' patients and other plan members. UBH has narrowly tailored its request to capture only these specific categories of information. Meridian Treatment Solutions is a substance abuse treatment provider located in Fort Lauderdale, FL (Broward County). United Behavioral Health was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40wZ0pp at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Heather L. Richardson, Esq. Geoffrey Sigler, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: lblas@gibsondunn.com gsigler@gibsondunn.com UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Hoelzer Appeals Case Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff MARTHA HOELZER filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment dated March 13, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled MARTHA HOELZER and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01072-LCB-LPA, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro. The complaint is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the North Carolina Persons with Disabilities Protection Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants discharged the Plaintiff from her position as a development officer for University of North Carolina Global because of her disability and discriminated against her in violation of the ADA. The Defendants retaliated against her because she took leave and requested a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The Defendants failed to engage in the interactive process with the Plaintiff in a meaningful manner and failed to consider whether other positions were available to her, and imposed terms and conditions on her employment which were unreasonable and designed to be unattainable in order to provide the Defendants with pretextual reason to terminate her. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order on March 13, 2023: 1. granting the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings; 2. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class; 3. denying appointment of class counsel; and 4. dismissing action. The Court found that it was not clearly established, under the circumstances faced by Defendant Daniel Lebold, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill employee, in his individual capacity, that terminating Plaintiff would violate her due process rights in a protected property interest. Given the specific context of this case, the Court did not find that the state of the law at the time of the events in question gave Defendant Lebold "fair warning" that his conduct was unconstitutional. The Court held that Defendant Leopold is entitled to qualified immunity. The Plaintiff's claim must therefore be dismissed. There being no remaining claims in this suit, Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel was denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned as Martha Hoelzer v. The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, et al., Case No. 23-1391, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 12, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARTHA HOELZER, and all similarly situated individuals, is represented by: Valerie Bateman, Esq. NEW SOUTH LAW FIRM 209 Lloyd StREET Carrboro, NC 27510 Telephone: (919) 810-3139 Defendants-Appellees BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., are represented by: Kenzie Marie Rakes, Esq. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 Telephone: (919) 716-6416 VOYAGER 888: Seeks to Correct Class Cert Bid Opposition ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORA KING, et al. v. VOYAGER 888, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00991-RMM (D.D.C.), the Defendants file an unopposed motion, asking the Court for leave to correct factual inaccuracies in its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and for appointment of class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) Pursuant to the joint motion to modify the Court's November 4, 2022, Minute Order, filed on January 11, 2023, the Court shall rule on Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification within 45 days of the April 4, 2023 close of the opt-in period (i.e., on or before May 19, 2023). Importantly, since the Defendants filed the Opposition on April 14, 2022, they have changed counsel to the present undersigned counsel. After carefully reviewing the arguments raised by the Defendants' prior counsel in the Opposition, Defendants' present undersigned counsel observed several inaccuracies. This Motion requests that Defendants are provided the opportunity to identify and redress said inaccuracies, supplementing its Opposition before the Court rules on Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L4liZI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Barbara L. Johnson, Esq. POTTER & MURDOCK, P.C. 1015 15th St., NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (571) 356-9007 Facsimile: (703) 832-0211 E-mail: bjohnson@pottermurdock.com WEXFORD HEALTH: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Larkin ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Larkin v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03015-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. 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. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mXlEtj at no extra charge.[CC] YOUNG WOMEN'S: Denies Diabetes Care in Program, Bowling Says ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIANNA BOWLING, on behalf of herself and her minor child, E.M., Plaintiff v. YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GETTYSBURG & ADAMS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA d/b/a YWCA Gettysburg and Adams County, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00617-SES (M.D. Pa., April 12, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Bowling's minor child E.M. has a diabetes, a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major activities, including E.M.'s blood glucose/endocrine regulation, which is a major bodily function. E.M. thus has a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 12102. Allegedly, YWCA refused, and continues to refuse, to make the necessary modifications to its childcare and summer programs to accommodate disability of diabetes of E.M., minor child of Plaintiff Bowling. The YWCA refused to provide E.M. with his insulin injections or special meals and failed to adequately train its staff regarding proper diabetes care, including on how staff should monitor E.M. for the signs of possible hypoglycemia, says the suit. The Defendant's acts and omissions have discriminated against and continue to discriminate against E.M. and Ms. Bowling on the basis of E.M.'s disability by denying E.M. and Ms. Bowling "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of" the YWCA's childcare and summer programs, the suit asserts. Young Women's Christian Association of Gettysburg & Adams County, Pennsylvania, doing business as YWCA Gettysburg and Adams County, is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marielle Macher, Esq. Peter Zurflieh, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT 118 Locust Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 236-9486 E-mail: mmacher@cjplaw.org ********* 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 ***