/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230503.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 3, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 89 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Horn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 902A LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ALCLEAR LLC: Murray Suit Removed to C.D. California ALLSTATE INSURANCE: James Suit Removed to N.D. California ALPACA COLLECTIONS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMBROSIA LLC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Barrett's Claims Without Prejudice APPLE INC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 23, 2024 AQ TEXTILES: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due Nov. 16 BABY FOOT USA: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BAREMINERAL US HOLDCO: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BAYER AG: Contraceptive Causes Heavy Bleeding, Turner Suit Says BON APPETIT: Nordman Case Remanded to Cal. Superior Ct. BOZZUTO'S INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Due March 25, 2024 BROOKLYN CLOTH LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BUILD REALTY: Loses Bid to Stay CPM Suit BUILD REALTY: Stay of Compound Property Suit Pending Appeal Denied BUSHWOOD INVESTMENT: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAFE LUNA INC: Kanacevic Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York CAFEDELIA INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CAR SOUND EXHAUST: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CARVING COMPANY: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHATEAU NURSING: Ross Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data CHSPSC LLC: Gatti Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee CHUNGHWA PICTURE: Wettstein Suit Transferred to N.D. California CIMAREX ENERGY: Class Certification Hearing Reset to Jan. 16, 2024 CITIBANK NA: Burgos Suit Removed to N.D. California COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: McGrady Files Class Certification Bid COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Ernst Suit Removed to D. Oregon CONTRACT LAND: Weinmann Seeks to Certify Day-Rate ROW Agent Class D&A SERVICES: Order Granting Bid to Dismiss Deutsch Suit Affirmed DAPPER LABS: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Jan. 17, 2024 DE WINE SPOT: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York DOUGLAS HOLDINGS: Approval of Collective Action Settlement Sought DOUGLAS HOLDINGS: Eberline Seeks to Certify Settlement Class EQONEX LIMITED: Sells Securities at Inflated Prices, Zhao Claims F.C. INDUSTRIES: Conditional Class Cert Bid Due June 1 FRAGRANCE OUTLET: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FRESCHI AIR SYSTEMS: Keys Suit Removed to N.D. California FUSION RANCH INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GALAXY BRUSH: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GENERAC POWER: Baltimore Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina GENERAL AUTOMOBILE: Proposed Discovery Plan Denied w/o Prejudice GREENFIELD WORLD TRADE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HARKLINIKKEN LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HEALTHY SKOOP: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOMEGOODS INC: Edlebeck Suit Removed to S.D. California HUMAN BEES: Greenstein Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. IMMERSION RESEARCH: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOANNA CZECH DALLAS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JPS LABS LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KAG WEST: Estrada Suit Removed to E.D. California LANNETT CO: Third Cir. Affirms Class Certification in UPRRS Suit LF SPORTSWEAR: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Strong Files Suit in D. Arizona LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Court Junks Bond Class Action LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Goldstein Suit Transferred to E.D. New York LITTLE TRAVELER: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MADISON SQUARE: Gross Suit Removed to S.D. New York MANOS INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MASTRONARDI PRODUCE-USA: Wants Plaintiffs to Appear for Deposition MAURICE MAX: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MDL 2873: Leptien's Conditional Transfer Order Vacated MDL 2924: Panel Denies Patterson's Remand Motion MEMORIAL HEALTH: Valladolid Suit Removed to C.D. California MIDWEST BANK: Potter Files Suit in D. Nebraska MILLENNIA TAX: Fridline Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania MOD SUPER: Joint Bid for Relief From Final Order in Pratz Suit OK'd NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces $6B Class Suit Over Sunday Package Tickets NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Young Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee NUGS.NET ENTERPRISES: McKay Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data OAKLAND NURSERY: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OLD EMPIRE INC: Muhammad Sues Over Breach of Contract PHILIP WILLIAMS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York PLDT INC: Claims Lead Plaintiffs Lack Sufficient Financial Interest RAISING CANE'S: Court Won't Remand Rodriguez Suit to State Court REALPAGE INC: Bertlshofer Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee REALPAGE INC: Corradino Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee REALPAGE INC: Schmidig Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee REJECT SHOP: Shortchanges Salaried Managers, Cannan Claims RELOGISTICS SERVICES: Ortega Suit Removed to E.D. California REVENTICS LLC: Trusty Files Suit in D. Colorado RIO TINTO: Panguna Landowners Sue Over Human Rights Abuses ROWDY BEVERAGE: Chauca Files Suit in S.D. California RUGSUSA LLC: Dray Files Suit in C.D. California SANDESTIN BEACH: Valerio Sues Over Discrimination and Unpaid OT SEQUIUM ASSET: Judgment on Pleadings in Bertolino FDCPA Suit Okayed SINGTEL OPTUS: Faces Data Breach Suit Affecting 10-Mil. Customers SNAP NURSE: Ramirez Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. STATE FARM: Dismissal of Any Illusory Policy Theory in Sisia Upheld SUDLER PROPERTY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Stauber Says TORY BURCH: Wilkins to Amend Suit to Allege Parties' Citizenship TWITTER INC: More Former Workers Join Suit Over Mass Layoffs VETERANS AFFAIRS: Fed. Cir. Tosses Dolbin's Appeal From Judgment ********* 3M COMPANY: Horn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Horn, 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-01671-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 testicular 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 902A LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 902A, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 902A, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03301 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 902a LLC is in the Business Services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com ALCLEAR LLC: Murray Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Benny Murray II, as an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALCLEAR, LLC, Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV03573 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. Case No. 2:23-cv-03051. On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action Complaint against Defendant which sets forth the following seven causes of action: Recovery of Unpaid Minimum Wages and Liquidated Damages; Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statement; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. Orlando J. Arellano, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com Orlando.Arellano@jacksonlewis.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: James Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Conrad James, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allstate Insurance Company, Heap Inc., Case No. CGC-23-605104 was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 21, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01931 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. The Allstate Corporation -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook, since 1967.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Margaret E. Dayton, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Ste 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 615-1988 Fax: (213) 615-1750 Email: PEDayton@winston.com ALPACA COLLECTIONS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpaca Collections. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alpaca Collections, Case No. 1:23-cv-03341-MKV (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alpaca Collections -- https://www.alpacacollections.com/ -- offers luxury clothing that has alpaca clothes and accessories from the finest baby alpaca wool of Peru.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com AMBROSIA LLC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ambrosia, LLC. The case is styled as Omar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ambrosia, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03359 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ambrosia offered to rejuvenate people with infusions of young blood.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Family Mutual Insurance Company. The case is styled as Daniel Rogers, Trina Hawthorne, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00254 (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. American Family Insurance -- http://www.amfam.com/-- also abbreviated as AmFam, is an American private mutual company that focuses on property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well as investment and retirement-planning products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 Ne 1st Ave, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Barrett's Claims Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CARL BARRETT, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04812-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Carl Barrett Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Carl Barrett, Eric Marinbach, Nancy Martin, Michel Polston, Michael Rodriguez, Maria Rodriguez, and Douglas Watson filed the putative class action against Defendants Apple Inc. and Apple Value Services LLC on July 17, 2020. The same seven individuals, joined by Guanting Qui and Andrew Hagene, filed an Amended Complaint against the Defendants on April 14, 2021. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Following the Court's order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs Eric Marinbach, Guanting Qui, and Douglas Watson provided notice of their voluntary dismissal of all claims in the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). At present, the remaining plaintiffs are Carl Barrett, Andrew Hagene, Nancy Martin, Michel Polston, Michael Rodriguez, and Maria Rodriguez (together, "Plaintiffs"). Broadly speaking, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants wrongfully withheld, concealed, and converted funds lost by victims of gift card scams involving Apple gift cards. On March 10, 2023, the counsel for the Plaintiffs filed the present Motion requesting that the Court dismisses with prejudice Mr. Barrett's individual claims against the Defendants. It appears that Mr. Barrett informed his counsel on Nov. 2, 2022, that he no longer desired to participate in the action. The counsel for the Plaintiffs have been unable to reach Mr. Barrett since that day, despite multiple attempts to contact him by phone, email, and expedited mail. On Dec. 27, 2022, the counsel for the Defendants noticed the deposition of each named Plaintiff, including Mr. Barrett. On Jan. 31, 2023, the counsel for the Plaintiffs informed the counsel for the Defendants of Mr. Barrett's stated desire to cease his participation in the action and subsequently informed them of the numerous, unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr. Barrett. The counsel for the Plaintiffs requested that the Defendants stipulate to Mr. Barrett's dismissal. The Defendants did not so stipulate and instead filed an unopposed motion before Judge DeMarchi to compel Mr. Barrett to fulfill his discovery obligations. On March 13, 2023, Judge DeMarchi granted the Defendants' motion and ordered Mr. Barrett to verify his interrogatory responses by March 20, 2023 and to sit for a deposition by the Defendants. The Defendants noticed Mr. Barrett's deposition for April 6, 2023. As stated by the counsel for the parties at oral argument on this Motion, Mr. Barrett has not complied with either component of Judge DeMarchi's Order. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the Plaintiffs seek a court order dismissing Mr. Barrett from the action with prejudice. In their limited opposition to the Motion, the Defendants do not contest Mr. Barrett's eventual dismissal from the action, but instead request that the Court conditions the dismissal on the Defendants' completion of -- or decision not to pursue -- remedies related to Mr. Barrett's failure to comply with his discovery obligations. Judge Davila is troubled by the concept of the Defendants obtaining admissions by serving discovery on Mr. Barrett to which he doubtless will not respond. As a tactical disadvantage does not constitute legal prejudice, it follows that the loss of a tactical advantage also does not constitute legal prejudice barring Mr. Barrett's dismissal. Further, Judge Davila is not persuaded by the Defendants' suggestion, made without citations to case law, that Mr. Barrett's dismissal may deprive the Court of its power to enforce Judge DeMarchi's Order because Mr. Barrett resides in Maryland. Courts in this district have granted dismissals under Rule 41(a)(2) of out-of-state plaintiffs who remained subject to existing discovery orders. Similarly, Mr. Barrett's mere desire to dismiss the case did not, and does not, abrogate his duty to comply with his discovery obligations and court orders. Accordingly, Judge Davila dismisses Mr. Barrett from the action, and does 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 him from the consequences of his non-compliance. Judge Davila therefore refers the resolution of any remaining discovery disputes and/or related sanctions to Judge DeMarchi. The only remaining question is whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice. Five putative class representatives remain in the 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. Taking these considerations into account, Judge Davila dismisses Mr. Barrett's claims without prejudice so that he may become an absent class member should the putative class be certified. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Davila dismisses without prejudice Barrett's claims. The parties are referred to Judge DeMarchi for resolution of the violation of the March 13, 2023 Order in the action. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2dpx5r from Leagle.com. APPLE INC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 23, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BRYAN, et al., v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00845-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order setting the following deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline -- Amendment of Pleadings/ Joinder: May 22, 2023 -- Motion for Class Certification and Feb. 23, 2024 Expert Report(s): -- Opposition to Motion for Class: April 26, 2024 -- Certification and Expert Report(s) May 30, 2024 Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification: -- Hearing on Motion for Class July 18, 2024 Certification 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/40s78Yc at no extra charge.[CC] AQ TEXTILES: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due Nov. 16 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HILL, et al., v. AQ TEXTILES LLC et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00983 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order that the parties' joint motion is granted in part to the extent that the scheduling deadlines shall be extended as follows: -- Mediation shall be conducted on or before: July 18, 2023 -- The Plaintiffs' expert report and July 20, 2023 disclosures shall be due on or before: -- The Defendant's expert report and Sept. 5, 2023 disclosures shall be due on or before: -- Rebuttal reports shall be due on or Oct. 6, 2023 Before: -- The overall discovery deadline shall be: Oct. 17, 2023 -- Dispositive motions shall be due on Nov. 16, 2023 or before: -- Class certification motions shall be Nov. 16, 2023 due on or before: -- The parties shall file a status report June 15, 2023 no later than: The nature of suit states Real Property -- Tort Product Liability.[CC] BABY FOOT USA: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baby Foot USA LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baby Foot USA LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03342 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Baby Foot -- https://www.babyfoot.com/ -- offers natural foot care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BAREMINERAL US HOLDCO: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baremineral US HoldCo Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baremineral US HoldCo Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03376 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Baremineral US HoldCo Inc. -- https://www.bareminerals.com/ -- is the #1 skin-improving tinted moisturizer in the us now in an oil-free, natural matte finish.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BAYER AG: Contraceptive Causes Heavy Bleeding, Turner Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Meehan of Goulburn Post reports that if she knew a permanent contraceptive could cause heavy bleeding, intense pain and end in a hysterectomy at 32, Patrice Turner says she would have never have gone through with it. Ms Turner, now 37, told the Victorian Supreme Court on April 17, 2023 she suffered severe and at times constant pelvic pain and heavy uterine bleeding in the years she had the device, which resolved after she underwent the major abdominal surgery. She is the lead plaintiff in a class action suing six companies involved in the design, manufacture, marketing and sale of the Essure device in Australia. They include Bayer Australia and German parent company Bayer AG. The plaintiffs say the device caused them chronic pelvic pain and abnormal uterine bleeding disorders. Ms Turner, a mother of three, had always been generally healthy and active. But faced with the collapse of her marriage - and knowing she didn't want any more children - she sought out medical advice for permanent contraception, which she underwent in 2013. At first she requested a hysterectomy, and then tubal litigation but her doctor explained the Essure device was a good, cheaper option, especially with its quick recovery time compared to the others. "I got the sense that it was safe and uncontroversial," Ms Turner said. "I do not recall being told that there were risks that having the device implanted may result in pelvic plain or very heavy menstrual bleeding. "I recall thinking the Essure was a great option for me because I was adamant that I didn't want another child." She also knew her then-husband would not get a vasectomy, she said. The Essure device was inserted into both of her fallopian tubes in September 2013. Once it was inserted, Ms Turner began to experience regular sharp, severe pains in her pelvic and abdominal areas. She described the pains as debilitating and said they would last for as long as an hour. But because of her marriage breakdown, Ms Turner said she did not seek medical attention as she normally would as her focus was on providing stability for her children in an often volatile situation. When she did see a doctor she always raised her ongoing health concerns, she said. David Collins KC, representing the companies, questioned why medical records didn't show Ms Turner repeatedly raising her health concerns to doctors. "Going to the doctor wasn't my priority," Ms Turner said. "And even though I had people telling me how unwell I was, it just wasn't my priority to focus on myself at that time." He also questioned why Ms Turner had such an aversion to oral contraceptives. Hundreds of thousands of women worldwide were implanted with the Essure device. Designed to permanently block the fallopian tubes, they were used in Australia for nearly two decades until being discontinued by Bayer for commercial reasons in 2017. The trial continues before Justice Andrew Keogh. [GN] BON APPETIT: Nordman Case Remanded to Cal. Superior Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE NORDMAN, et al., v. BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT CO. (BAMCO), et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00703-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. BAMCO's motion to dismiss is denied as moot, the Court Says. The Defendants argue that the court should assert supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims because they arise "from the same common nucleus of operative facts" as the claims addressed above. Because the court finds that the LMRA does not preempt any of The Plaintiffs' claims, it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The Plaintiffs Julie Nordman and Linda Peppars filed this putative wage and hour class action lawsuit against the Defendants. BAMCO removed the case, asserting that this court has federal question jurisdiction because Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempts the Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs have worked as concession workers for the Defendants at Oracle Park and Chase Center since 2018. 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 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 this putative wage and hour class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo on January 17, 2023. They assert eight claims for violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. Bon Appetit provides cafe and catering services to corporations, colleges, and universities. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AofXYE at no extra charge.[CC] BOZZUTO'S INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Due March 25, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRUDY LOISEAU, QUENTIN L. HEBRON and DWAYNE SMALL, individually and, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BOZZUTO'S INC., JAMES JONES, CHUCK CERRETA and JOEL SANTIAGO, Case No. 3:22-cv-01485-JCH (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Janet C. Hall entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline to Join Parties and/or Amend May 31, 2023 Pleadings: -- Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery: March 1, 2024 -- Deadline to File Motion for Class March 25, 2024 Certification: -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to March 25, 2024 Disclose Experts and Submit Initial Expert Reports: -- Opposition to Motion for Class May 3, 2024 Certification: -- Deadline for the Defendants to May 3, 2024 Disclose Experts and Submit Initial Expert Reports: -- Reply in Support of Motion for May 27, 2024 Class Certification: -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to May 27, 2024 Disclose Rebuttal Experts and Submit Rebuttal Expert Reports: -- Deadline for the Defendants to June 24, 2024 Disclose Rebuttal Experts and Submit Rebuttal Expert Reports: -- Deadline to File Dispositive Motions: June 24, 2024 -- Deadline to File Joint Trial June 24, 2024 Memorandum: Bozzuto's Inc. is a total service wholesale distributor of food and household products to retailers in New England, New York, and New Jersey. A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lvw9xz at no extra charge.[CC] BROOKLYN CLOTH LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Cloth, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brooklyn Cloth, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03328 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brooklyn Cloth -- https://www.brooklyncloth.com/ -- is an independent fashion brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BUILD REALTY: Loses Bid to Stay CPM Suit ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COMPOUND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. BUILD REALTY, INC., d/b/a, GREENLEAF FUNDING, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00133-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for stay. The Defendants argue they will suffer "immense costs associated with discovery, summary judgment, and possible trial preparation." Namely, they complain they will face a broader scope of discovery with the class certified, including "hundreds of thousands of pages, and terabytes, of documents. " The Court is unpersuaded. As a general matter, "mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough." Similarly, the Defendants' fear that their discovery costs will be "incurred unnecessarily" doesn't help their case. Surely every the Defendant petitioning for decertification under Rule 23(f) worries costs will be incurred that could be avoided if they were to prevail. The Defendants' concern here is not outside the norm. And again, litigation costs alone do not constitute irreparable harm, so the claim they are "unnecessary" doesn't add much. In sum, nothing about the Defendants' potential litigation expenses warrants a stay, the Court says. Build Realty provides real estate investors with distressed properties and private financing to start or grow their business. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mYnUk4 at no extra charge.[CC] BUILD REALTY: Stay of Compound Property Suit Pending Appeal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, COMPOUND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BUILD REALTY, INC., d/b/a, GREENLEAF FUNDING, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-133 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Douglas R. Cole of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denies the Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Rule 23(f) Appeal. In its most recent Opinion and Order, the Court granted the Plaintiffs Motion to Certify as to their civil RICO and breach of fiduciary duties claims, appointed the named Plaintiffs as the class representatives, and appointed Finney Law Firm, LLC, and Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, as the class counsel. Following that Opinion, the Defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for permission to file an interlocutory appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). They then moved in the Court to stay these proceedings while the Sixth Circuit considers their petition and potential appeal. The Plaintiffs opposed that motion and the Defendants have now replied. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) permits a district court to stay proceedings while the circuit court considers an interlocutory appeal of an order granting or denying a motion to certify a class. In evaluating such a motion, the Court considers: (1) whether the defendant has a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the defendant will suffer irreparable harm if the district court proceedings are not stayed; (3) whether staying the district court proceedings will substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. Judge Cole holds that each factor cuts against issuing a stay. First, the Defendants' Motion to Stay nowhere discusses the likelihood they could succeed in decertifying the breach of fiduciary duties claim. So civil RICO claim aside, the Defendants have not made even a threshold showing to warrant a stay on the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duties claim. Second, the Defendants have not persuaded the Court they face imminent, irreparable injury absent a stay. Third, the litigation has been pending nearly six years -- beginning in state court in 2017 and moving to federal court in 2019. For a controversy that old, more delay itself would cause substantial harm to the Plaintiffs. Finally, the litigation is close to six years old. Additional delay would undermine the public's interest. For these reasons, Judge Cole denies the Defendants' Motion for Stay. Discovery may proceed. Rule 26(b)'s proportionality principle likewise remains in effect. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/48cbz52x from Leagle.com. BUSHWOOD INVESTMENT: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bushwood Investment Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Omar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bushwood Investment Partners, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03357 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bushwood Investment Partners, LLC is a specialized commercial, consumer & government debt recovery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CAFE LUNA INC: Kanacevic Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cafe Luna Inc., et al. The case is styled as Azem Kanacevic, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cafe Luna Inc., Josephine Nuccio, Case No. 1:23-cv-03031 (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cafe Luna -- https://www.cafeluna-centralsq.com/ -- is a cozy & relaxed restaurant/cafe offering a vast menu of breakfast, sandwiches & salads, plus a popular weekend brunch.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CAFEDELIA INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cafedelia, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cafedelia, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02965 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cafedelia, Inc. is a casual counter-serve eatery serving traditional Georgian dishes such as pork sausages & potato pie.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CAR SOUND EXHAUST: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Car Sound Exhaust System, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Car Sound Exhaust System, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03298 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Car Sound Exhaust System, Inc., doing business as Magnaflow -- https://www.magnaflow.com/ -- manufactures automotive components. The Company specializes in design, validation, and production of aftermarket metallic and ceramic catalysts, as well as diesel particulate filters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CARVING COMPANY: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Carving Company Online, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Carving Company Online, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03332 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Carving Company Online, LLC -- https://thecarvingcompanyonline.com/ -- are a full service Custom carved sign shop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com CHATEAU NURSING: Ross Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data ----------------------------------------------------------- Rashanie Ross, individually and on all others similarly behalf of situated v. CHATEAU NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, Case No. 2023LA000412 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., April 20, 2023), is brought against Defendant to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. While most establishments and employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant, upon information and belief, mandated and required that employees have hand(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. As an employee/worker of Defendant, Plaintiff was required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having her hand scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each employee, including Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA. Specifically, Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues not to: Properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their hand scan(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' hand scan(s), as required by BIPA; Receive a written release from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use their hand scan(s), as required by BIPA. The Plaintiff and the Class members may be aggrieved because Defendant may have improperly disclosed employees' biometrics to third-party vendors in violation of BIPA. The Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its location in Illinois. The Defendant Chateau Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC is an Illinois corporation with places of business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Adam Florek, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com aflorek@peifferwolf.com - and - Chris Jennings, Esq. THE JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501-372-1300 Email: chris@youattorney.com CHSPSC LLC: Gatti Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHSPSC, LLC. The case is styled as Bethany Gatti, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHSPSC, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00371 (S.D. Cal., April 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. CHSPSC, LLC -- http://www.chs.net/-- is a management company and provides services to the many subsidiary hospital operator companies and other affiliates of Community Health Systems, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody R. Galaher, Esq. GALAHER LAW, PLLC 725 Cool Springs Blvd. Suite #600 Franklin, TN 37067 Phone: (615) 732-6168 Email: CGalaher@ForThePeople.com - and - Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com CHUNGHWA PICTURE: Wettstein Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Wettstein and Sons, Inc. doing business as: Wettstein's, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., Tatung Company of America Inc., L.G. Electronics, Inc., LG Philips Display USA Inc., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., Panasonic Corporation of North America, Koninkluke Philips Electronics N.V., Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America Inc., Samsung SDI Co Ltd. formerly known as: Samsung Display Device Co., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Electronic Components Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems Inc., MT Picture Display Company, MT Picture Display Corporation of America (New York), MT Picture Display Corporation of America (Ohio), LP Displays, Case No. 0:07-cv-04889 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01882-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Chungwha Picture Tubes, Ltd. (CPT) is one of Taiwan's, and the world's, leading manufacturers of thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays, or TFT-LCDs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine T. Kelly Samuel D. Heins Troy J. Hutchinson Vincent J. Esades HEINS MILLS & OLSON PLC 310 Clifton Avenue MPLS, MN 55403 Phone: (612) 436-5367 Fax: (612) 338-4692 Email: kkelly@heinsmills.com thutchinson@heinsmills.com vesades@heinsmills.com CIMAREX ENERGY: Class Certification Hearing Reset to Jan. 16, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE DUNCAN GROUP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CIMAREX ENERGY CO., Case No. 5:18-cv-00123-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jodi Dishman entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to reset hearing to start on Tuesday, January 16, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 502, to continue over the following days as and if necessary: January 17, 18, and 19, 2024. The Plaintiff shall file a witness list for the witnesses that will be called at the hearing 14 days prior to the hearing. The Defendant shall file its witness list 7 days prior to the hearing. Further, the parties may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within 14 days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Court says. Cimarex Energy was a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration, particularly shale oil and gas drilling. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40Aejxo at no extra charge.[CC] CITIBANK NA: Burgos Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Susana Burgos, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. 23-CIV-00588 was removed from the San Mateo County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01907-LB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Citibank, N. A. -- http://www.citi.com/-- is the primary U.S. banking subsidiary of financial services multinational Citigroup.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Nicholas James De Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 551-1223 x127 Fax: (858) 551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawlj.com aj@bamlawlj.com kyle@bamlawlj.com nick@bamlawca.com The Defendants are represented by: Daryl Steven Landy, Esq. Nancy My Ngoc Nguyen, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 830-0600 Fax: (714) 830-0700 Email: daryl.landy@morganlewis.com nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: McGrady Files Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned KENNETH MCGRADY, Individually, and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, v. COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, INC., a Wyoming corporation, BARNEY & GRAHAM, LLC, WESTON T. GRAHAM, CHRISTOPHER COCCIMIGLIO, and DAVID C. COCCIMIGLIO, Case No. 1:22-cv-00100-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class in this action for the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The class period is one year prior to the filing of the Class Action Complaint which was filed on May 3, 2022. The Consumer defines the purported class as: "All persons with addresses within Wyoming; who, between May 3, 2021, and May 3, 2022, directly or indirectly received any document that purports to be a summons filed, or to be filed in a Wyoming circuit court: that identifies CPI as the plaintiff and B&G, or one of its attorneys, as attorney for the plaintiff; that was used to recover a consumer debt; and which (1) omitted the full mailing address of the Circuit Court and/or the plaintiff's attorney, (2) failed to state that when the summons is filed with the court a notice will be mailed by the plaintiff, or (3) contained the following language: "judgment by default will be taken against you." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HbWD4D at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mr. Bret T. Allred, Esq. YELLOWSTONE LAW GROUP LLC 117 N. Bent Street, Ste C Powell, WY 82435 Telephone: (307) 271-1034 E-mail: bret@YellowstoneLawGroup.com COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Ernst Suit Removed to D. Oregon ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Larae Ernst, Jennifer Najera, And Amanda Smith, and Daniel Sokol, and others similarly situated v. COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, Case No. 23CV07751 was removed from the Marion County Circuit Court, to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on April 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-00580-MK. The Plaintiffs' allegations stated that Defendant failed to properly pay wages, and failed to properly make paycheck deductions in violation of ORS 652.120, ORS 652.140, ORS 652.150 and ORS 652.610.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Ames Benedict, Esq, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 241-2300 Facsimile: (503) 778-5299 Email: SarahBenedict@dwt.com CONTRACT LAND: Weinmann Seeks to Certify Day-Rate ROW Agent Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAYL WEINMANN, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. CONTRACT LAND STAFF, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01140-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of and authorizing notice be sent to: "All Right of Way Agents who worked for, or on behalf of, CLS who were paid a day rate with no overtime in the past three years. (Day-Rate ROW Agents)." The Plaintiff Weinmann also requests the Court for an order: -- approving the Notice and Consent forms attached as Exhibit 1 to her Memorandum; -- authorizing the mailing, emailing, and texting of notice, along with a reminder notice; -- authorizing Class Counsel to contact the Day-Rate ROW Agents by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and Consent forms return undeliverable; -- directing CLS to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for each of the Day-Rate ROW Agents within 10 days of the Court's order; and -- authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Day-Rate ROW Agents to join the case. Contract Land is a service provider for land services in the Pipeline, Electric, Public, and Renewable Energies sectors nationwide. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3At9yLE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412)766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.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 D&A SERVICES: Order Granting Bid to Dismiss Deutsch Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MINDY DEUTSCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Appellant v. D&A SERVICES LLC, Case No. 22-1042 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's order granting D&A's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Deutsch filed a lawsuit against D&A alleging that D&A violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by sending her a misleading debt collection letter. Deutsch incurred a debt to a non-party credit card company. After she failed to pay it for some time, the credit card company assigned the debt to D&A for collection. D&A sent Deutsch two debt collection letters: the first on June 8, 2020 and the second on July 13, 2020. Deutsch claims that the following language in the June 8, 2020 letter was misleading in violation of the FDCPA. Although the parties dispute whether it does so accurately, the Suspend Collection Language in the Letters tries to describe rights created by another provision of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(b). While a debt collector must describe a debtor's Section 1692g(a) rights in its first communication with the debtor, the statute does not require it to provide information about the debtor's Section 1692g(b) rights. Deutsch brought a putative class action alleging that the Disputed Language was misleading, in violation of the FDCPA. She alleged that the Suspend Collection Language was misleading because it gave her the incorrect impression that she could suspend collection by disputing all or part of the debt orally or outside the 30-day window, which conflicts with the rights provided by Section 1692g(b). As noted, a debt collector need not inform a debtor of the protections provided by Section 1692g(b). But Deutsch's complaint alleges that, even though D&A was not required to inform her of her Section 1692g(b) rights, the inclusion of the inaccurate information about her Section 1692g(b) rights had the effect of giving her "contrary and inconsistent" information about her rights under Section 1692g(a). The District Court granted D&A's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. It concluded that the Disputed Language, read holistically, is not misleading because it does not suggest that a recipient could suspend collection by orally disputing the debt or disputing the debt outside the statutory 30-day window. Deutsch timely appealed. On appeal, Deutsch claims that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear her case because she does not have Article III standing to sue over the letter given the Supreme Court's recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021). Alternatively, she contends that if the District Court had jurisdiction, it erred by concluding that the Disputed Language was not misleading and granting D&A's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In order to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts, a plaintiff must have Article III standing, which requires a showing that the plaintiff has: (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Deutsch argues that she lacks standing to pursue her claims in federal court because she has not alleged a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing under the principles set forth in TransUnion. The Third Circuit disagrees. It opines that Deutsch has Article III standing to pursue her claims against D&A because she has adequately alleged that she has suffered a concrete informational injury. Deutsch's alleged informational injury stems from a purportedly deceptive debt collection practice and aligns with Congress's goal of "eliminating abusive practices by debt collectors. Since it has concluded that Deutsch has standing to bring an FDCPA lawsuit against D&A, the Third Circuit addresses the merits of the District Court's decision granting D&A's motion to dismiss. The District Court concluded that the Disputed Language was not false, deceptive, or misleading, and we agree with the District Court. Deutsch argues that the Suspend Collection Language is misleading because it is susceptible to more than one interpretation, one of which conflicts with Section 1692g. The Third Circuit opines that does not read the Suspend Collection Language in isolation. Instead, it reads it in connection with the G-Notice that accompanies it. Even for the least sophisticated debtor, the G-Notice eliminates any ambiguity: it explains that a debtor who wishes to avail herself of her statutory right to validation of a debt must request validation in writing and within 30 days of receiving a collection notice. The Disputed Language therefore does not violate the FDCPA, and the Third Circuit agrees with the District Court's decision to dismiss Deutsch's claims. For the foregoing reasons, the Third Circuit affirms the judgment of the District Court. Because it has concluded that Deutsch has standing, the Third Circuit also denies her motion to vacate the District Court's opinion and judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3u8mfxyw from Leagle.com. DAPPER LABS: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Jan. 17, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEEUN FRIEL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAPPER LABS, INC. AND ROHAM GHAREGOZLOU, Case No. 1:21-cv-05837-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Victor Marrero entered an order civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: 1. This case is to be tried to a jury. 2. No additional parties to be joined without leave of the Court. 3. No further amended pleadings may be filed without leave of the Court. 4. Initial disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) to be completed 14 days of the date of the parties' conference pursuant to Rule 26(f), specifically by not later than April 12, 2023. 5. Initial requests for production of documents to be served by May 17, 2023. 6. Depositions to be completed by June 17, 2024. 7. Requests to Admit to be served no later than March 18, 2024. 8. The Plaintiffs' Expert reports due July 17, 2024. 9. Depositions of The Plaintiffs' Experts to be completed by August 19, 2024. 10. The Defendants' Expert reports due September 19, 2024. 11. Depositions of The Defendants' Experts to be completed by October 21, 2024. 12. Motion for class certification due January 17, 2024. 13. Motion for summary judgment due November 19, 2024. 14. The Plaintiffs' opposition due December 23, 2024. 15. The Defendants' reply due January 23, 2025. 16. Following all discovery, all counsel must meet for at least one hour to discuss settlement, such conference to be held by not later than August 30, 2024. Dapper Labs is a gaming company. The Company offers blockchain based gaming experience and digital collectibles such as basket ball, rugby, football, fights, and other games. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KZNgG3 at no extra charge.[CC] DE WINE SPOT: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against De Wine Spot Incorporated. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. De Wine Spot Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-02955 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. De Wine Spot -- https://dewinespot.co/ -- is East Williamsburg wine, sake and spirits shop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com DOUGLAS HOLDINGS: Approval of Collective Action Settlement Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY EBERLINE, CINDY ZIMMERMANN, and TRACY POXSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DOUGLAS J. HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-10887-JEL-KGA (E.D. Mich.), The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the settlement class and preliminarily approving the Parties' proposed settlement. The Plaintiffs request certification of the proposed class and collective action for settlement purposes only. The proposed settlement class would consist of any student who attended the Defendant Douglas J. Institute, Inc.'s cosmetology programs in Michigan and participated in the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and/or Salon Life courses in 2012 through 2022. The Plaintiffs request that the proposed class notices and claim form be approved for distribution to members of the settlement class. The proposed class notices and claim form are attached as Exhibits 2, 3, & 4 respectively to the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support. The Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court set a hearing date for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement for the first available date in November 2023. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lqn5J9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Philo, Esq. Anthony D. Paris, Esq. SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE 4605 Cass Avenue, 2nd Floor Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 993-4505 Facsimile: (313) 887-8470 E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org - and - Kathryn Bruner James, Esq. Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq. GOODMAN, HURWITZ & JAMES, P.C. 1394 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 567-6170 Facsimile: (313) 251-6068 E-mail: kjames@goodmanhurwitz.com jhurwitz@goodmanhurwitz.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew T. Nelson, Esq. Amanda M. Fielder, Esq. Brandon J. Cory, Esq. Michael G. Brady, Esq. Adam T. Ratliff, Esq. WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD LLP 150 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 1500 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 752-2000 Facsimile: (616) 752-2500 E-mail: mnelson@wnj.com afielder @wnj.com bcory@wnj.com mbrady@wnj.com aratliff@wnj.com DOUGLAS HOLDINGS: Eberline Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY EBERLINE, CINDY ZIMMERMANN, and TRACY POXSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DOUGLAS J. HOLDINGS, INC., et. al., Case No. 5:14-cv-10887-JEL-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting certification of the proposed settlement class; -- granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement; -- approving notice to potential settlement class members; -- appointing the named Plaintiffs as class representatives; -- appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; -- appointing Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as settlement administrator; and -- setting a hearing date for final approval of the settlement on the first available date in November 2023. -- The settlement class would consist of: "all students who attended the Defendant Douglas J. Institute, Inc.'s cosmetology schools in Michigan and participated in the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and/or Salon Life segments of the cosmetology program between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022. Approximately 5,100 individuals would qualify as members of the proposed settlement class." The proposed settlement class satisfies the requirements of a collective action under the 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and satisfies the requirements for a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and (b)(3), the Plaintiff contends. -- Settlement Consideration The Defendants have agreed to pay a maximum settlement amount of $2,800,000 in exchange for a dismissal of the action and a release of claims as specified in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Amount will be paid by The Defendants in two installments of $1,400,000. If no objections are timely filed, the first payment will be made on or before December 31, 2023, and the second payment shall be made before October 14, 2024. -- Participating Class Members Participating class members shall include all settlement class members who: 1) timely complete an online Claim Form or who timely complete and mail a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator; and 2) if eligible to work in the United States, timely complete and submit executed W4 and W9 forms; or if ineligible to work in the United States, shall have taxes withheld in accordance with the terms of the agreement. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41BaoSB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Philo, Esq. Anthony D. Paris, Esq. SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE 4605 Cass Avenue, 2nd Floor Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 993-4505 Facsimile: (313) 887-8470 E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org - and - Kathryn Bruner James, Esq. Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq. GOODMAN, HURWITZ & JAMES, P.C. 1394 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 567-6170 Facsimile: (313) 251-6068 E-mail: kjames@goodmanhurwitz.com jhurwitz@goodmanhurwitz.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew T. Nelson, Esq. Amanda M. Fielder, Esq. Brandon J. Cory, Esq. Michael G. Brady, Esq. Adam T. Ratliff, Esq. WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD LLP 150 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 1500 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 752-2000 Facsimile: (616) 752-2500 E-mail: mnelson@wnj.com afielder @wnj.com bcory@wnj.com mbrady@wnj.com aratliff@wnj.com EQONEX LIMITED: Sells Securities at Inflated Prices, Zhao Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOUIS ZHAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQONEX LIMITED, BINANCE GROUP, BIFINITY UAB, JONATHAN FARNELL, DANIEL LING, ALMIRA CEMMELL, YU HELEN HAI, and ZHAO CHANGPENG, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03346 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading statements in order to trade Eqonex securities at artificially inflated prices between March 7, 2022 and November 29, 2022. Specifically, the 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) Defendants had no intention of consummating a merger between Eqonex and Bifinity or Binance; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. When the truth emerged, Eqonex's share price fell over 34 percent to close at $0.093 on November 29, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume, thereby injuring investors. Eqonex Limited is a digital assets financial services company based in Singapore. Binance Group is a blockchain ecosystem and cryptocurrency infrastructure provider. Bifinity UAB is a payments technology company based in Lithuania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Rosen, Esq. Constantine Economides, Esq. Ivy T. Ngo, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 374-3700 Facsimile: (646) 392-8842 E-mail: erosen@fnf.law ceconomides@fnf.law ingo@fnf.law F.C. INDUSTRIES: Conditional Class Cert Bid Due June 1 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as REGINALD SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. F.C. INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00055-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Newman entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: -- Pre-discovery disclosures required April 24, 2023 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), including a medical package (if applicable): -- Motions to amend the pleadings May 12, 2023 or to add parties: -- Motions directed to the April 28, 2023 pleadings: -- Motion for conditional June 1, 2023 class certification deadline: -- Lay witness disclosures: November 30, 2023 -- Primary expert designations: November 1, 2023 -- Rebuttal expert designations: December 31, 2023 -- Discovery cut-off on conditional May 25, 2023 Class certification: -- Discovery cut-off on all April 1, 2024 matters: -- Motion for final class May 1, 2024 certification deadline: -- Dispositive motions May 16, 2024 (i.e., summary judgment motions): FC Industries is a family of metal manufacturing companies serving industries like aerospace, automotive, construction, energy, and defense. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3V8c9UL at no extra charge.[CC] FRAGRANCE OUTLET: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Fragrance Outlet, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Fragrance Outlet, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03275 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fragrance Outlet -- https://www.fragranceoutlet.com/ -- is one of the nation's largest retailers with over 100 Stores of genuine designer fragrances including Calvin Klein, Dior, Gucci, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com FRESCHI AIR SYSTEMS: Keys Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Anthony Keys, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRESCHI AIR SYSTEMS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C22-02747 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Nothern District of California on April 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. Case No. 3:23-cv-01934. Plaintiff's Complaint in the State Court Action asserted the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, and; Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alison L. Tsao, Esq. Marianne C. Koepf, Esq. Candace DesBaillets, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 440 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 981-3233 Email: atsao@cdflaborlaw.com mkoepf@cdflaborlaw.com cdesbaillets@cdflaborlaw.com FUSION RANCH INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fusion Ranch, Inc. The case is styled as Omar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fusion Ranch, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03358 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fusion Ranch Inc. -- http://www.fusionranch.com/-- is a jerky processing facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com GALAXY BRUSH: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Galaxy Brush LLC. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Galaxy Brush LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03310 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Galaxy Brushes -- https://www.galaxybrushes.com/ -- is an industry-leading brush manufacturer.[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 GENERAC POWER: Baltimore Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Marcia Baltimore, Steve Cothren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., Case No. 23CV00641-910 was removed from the State of North Carolina Superior Court for Wake County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on April 21, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00217-M to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Generac Holdings Inc. -- https://www.generac.com/ -- commonly referred to as Generac, is a Fortune 1000 American manufacturer of backup power generation products for residential, light commercial and industrial markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: John S. Hahn, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 263-3346 Fax: (202) 263-5346 Email: jhahn@mayerbrown.com GENERAL AUTOMOBILE: Proposed Discovery Plan Denied w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Woodburn, v. The General Automobile Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01975-APG-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Albregts entered an order that the parties' proposed discovery plan is denied without prejudice. The parties shall file a renewed discovery plan on or before May 8, 2023, the Court says. The case is a Telephone Consumer Protection Act action arising out of unsolicited texts the Defendant General Automobile Insurance Services allegedly sent to The Plaintiff Jennifer Woodburn. The parties filed a joint discovery plan and scheduling order with competing viewpoints. The Plaintiff has proposed an extended discovery schedule. The Defendant has proposed that discovery be stayed until the Court decides its pending dispositive motion. Because the Court finds that a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order is not the appropriate way to seek a discovery stay, and because the Court finds that certain of the Plaintiff's proposed dates are miscalculated or unexplained, it denies the discovery plan and scheduling order. General Automobile is an insurance agency that is a subsidiary of PGC Holdings Corp. that focuses on auto insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41uSalu at no extra charge.[CC] GREENFIELD WORLD TRADE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenfield World Trade, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Greenfield World Trade, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03291 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Greenfield World Trade -- https://www.greenfieldworldtrade.com/ -- is a manufacturers of high quality commercial restaurant equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com HARKLINIKKEN LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harklinikken, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Harklinikken, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02959 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Harklinikken, LLC -- https://www.harklinikken.com/ -- offers personalized and bespoke hair and scalp treatments and clean, hand-crafted hair care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com HEALTHY SKOOP: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthy Skoop, LLC. The case is styled as Omar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthy Skoop, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03355 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Healthy Skoop, LLC -- https://healthyskoop.com/ -- operates as a provider of plant-based nutrition food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HOMEGOODS INC: Edlebeck Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Edlebeck, an individual, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California v. HOMEGOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation, NASH TANG, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00051267-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on April 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00735-BEN-BGS. On March 8, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against the Defendants HomeGoods, Inc., Nash Tang and various Does (hereafter, "FAC"), asserting the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Statutory Compliant Meal and Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay All Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure To Pay All Wages Upon Resignation or Discharge; and Representative Claims Under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bradley E. Schwan, Esq. Jannine E. Kranz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Fax: 310.553.5583 Email: bschwan@littler.com jkranz@littler.com - and - Brittany L. Mccarthy, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Phone: 619.232.0441 Fax: 619.232.4302 Email: blmccarthy@littler.com HUMAN BEES: Greenstein Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Human Bees, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Melissa Greenstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Casper Sleep, Inc., METTLER-TOLEDO Rainin, LLC, Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV031642 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 21, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Human Bees -- https://humanbees.com/ -- provides workforce recruiting, staffing, and human capital solutions across multiple industries.[BN] IMMERSION RESEARCH: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Immersion Research, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Immersion Research, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03292 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Immersion Research -- https://immersionresearch.com/ -- is a manufacturing company that designs and develops paddling gear, dry suits, apparel, spray skirts, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com JOANNA CZECH DALLAS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joanna Czech Dallas, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Joanna Czech Dallas, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02962 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Joanna Czech -- https://www.joannaczech.com/ -- is a full-service beauty brand which includes two skincare studios (Dallas & New York) and an e-commerce website with an editorial magazine (CzechList) created by renowned esthetician Joanna Czech.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com JPS LABS LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPS Labs, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JPS Labs, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03331-JLR (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. JPS Labs -- https://jpslabs.com/ -- designs, builds, and distributes the finest in personal audio including high performance RCA, XLR, and AC power cables and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com KAG WEST: Estrada Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Estrada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KAG WEST, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; J.D. DOE, an individual, and DOES 1-100, Case No. BCV-23-100810 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. Case No. 1:23-at-00344. The Complaint purports to allege six causes of action: Disability Discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code ("FEHA"), Failure to Accommodate in violation of FEHA, Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in violation of FEHA, Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IIED") based on the same alleged conduct as the other claims, and Failure to Deliver Personnel File.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian L. Johnsrud, Esq. Stephan N. Yang, Esq. Emilie Smith Petirs, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194 Phone: +1 650 847 4150 Fax: +1 650 847 4151 Email: bjohnsrud@duanemorris.com snyang@duanemorris.com epetirs@duanemorris.com LANNETT CO: Third Cir. Affirms Class Certification in UPRRS Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO RETIREMENT SYSTEM; IRONWORKERS LOCALS 40, 361 AND 417 UNION SECURITY FUNDS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. LANNETT CO, INC.; ARTHUR BEDROSIAN; MARTIN P. GALVAN, Appellants, Case No. 21-3150 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's order certifying a class. Generic-drug manufacturer, Lannett, asks the Third Circuit to vacate a district court order certifying a securities-fraud class. It declines to do so, concluding that the District Court properly certified the class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The University of Puerto Rico Retirement System (UPRRS) brought the putative securities-fraud class action against Lannett, Arthur Bedrosian (Lannett's former CEO), and Martin Galvan (Lannett's former CFO). UPRRS claimed that it and other putative class members bought Lannett's common stock at artificially inflated prices because Lannett made false and misleading statements about generic-drug pricing, as well as about state and federal investigations into price-fixing in the generic-drug market. According to UPRRS, anticompetitive conduct among Lannett's competitors increased prices for five generic drugs that accounted for most of Lannett's sales from 2013 to 2016. Lannett told shareholders that it received a subpoena and interrogatories from authorities investigating the anticompetitive conduct. It assured investors, however, that its past financial results were the product of a competitive market and that Lannett's pricing strategy and future results would not be affected by regulatory scrutiny of anticompetitive conduct in the industry. Despite these assurances, Lannett's stock price fell. UPRRS moved to certify a securities-fraud class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The District Court granted UPRRS' class-certification motion. Lannett then appealed the District Court's order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Third Circuit agreed to hear this interlocutory appeal, in which Lannett raises two arguments. First, Lannett contends that the District Court failed to address evidence of the lack of price impact, as required by the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. However, it has forfeited that argument. Second, it asserts that the District Court erred in concluding that the Supreme Court's decision in Comcast Corporation v. Behrend did not bar class certification in this action; it contends that because there was a mismatch between UPRRS' theory of liability and its theory of damages, a class action was improperly certified. The Third Circuit concludes, however, that the District Court properly evaluated UPRRS' theories of liability and damages under Comcast. In sum, the Third Circuit opines that Lannett forfeited its argument about price impact with respect to the fraud-on-the-market presumption because it did not include the argument in its class-certification briefing before the District Court. In addition, UPRRS properly asserted a single, long-accepted damages theory (the out-of-pocket loss theory) tied to a single theory of liability (Lannett's misrepresentations inflated its stock's value, and the value declined when the truth emerged). The damages theory and the liability theory pair properly. Thus, the District Court correctly concluded that Comcast was inapposite. For these reasons, the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's order certifying the class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/337728ds from Leagle.com. LF SPORTSWEAR: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LF Sportswear, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LF Sportswear, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03274 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. LF Sportswear, Inc. manufactures women's apparels. The Company offers women's blouses, jeans, hats, tops, skirts, and shirts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Strong Files Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LifeStance Health Group Incorporated. The case is styled as Montana Strong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LifeStance Health Group Incorporated doing business as: LifeStance, Case No. 2:23-cv-00682-JAT (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injuries. LifeStance Health's -- https://lifestance.com/ -- family of behavioral health brands offer online psychiatry and therapy services across the US.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP - CHICAGO, IL 71 S Wacker Dr., Ste. 1600 Chicago, IL 60606-4637 Phone: (312) 212-4953 Fax: (312) 767-9192 Email: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com - and - Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (312) 576-3024 - and - Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP 14646 N Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762 Phone: (480) 348-6400 Fax: (480) 348-6415 Email: hlr@zimmreed.com LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Court Junks Bond Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bond, et al., v. Lighthouse Insurance Group, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00677 (N.D. Ohio, Filed March 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Philip Calabrese entered an order dismissing case. Based on the parties' stipulation of dismissal, the Court denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and closes the case. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act / Junk Fax Prevention Act. Lighthouse was founded in 2011. The company's line of business includes providing insurance agent and broker services.[CC] LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Goldstein Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jason Goldstein, Lynn Minck, Michelle Sturgis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lindt & Sprungli (USA), Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01213 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03014-NRM-CLP to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lindt & Sprungli (USA) Inc. -- http://www.lindtusa.com/-- manufactures and sells chocolates. The company offers truffles, boxed chocolates, bars, milk chocolates, dark chocolates, white chocolates, and blends.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Samuel Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com The Defendant is represented by: Alvina Pillai, Esq. KING & SPALDING 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 790-5331 Fax: (212) 556-2222 Email: apillai@kslaw.com LITTLE TRAVELER: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Little Traveler, Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Little Traveler, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03326 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Little Traveler, Inc. -- https://www.littletraveler.com/ -- is a gift shop in Geneva, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com MADISON SQUARE: Gross Suit Removed to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Aaron Gross, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. (n/k/a Sphere Entertainment Co.), Case No. 651533/2023 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 21, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03380 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. -- http://www.msgentertainment.com/-- is an American entertainment holding company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Shawn Patrick Regan, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Phone: (212) 309-1046 Fax: (212) 309-1100 Email: sregan@hunton.com MANOS INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manos, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Manos, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03293 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mano's -- https://manoswine.com/ -- is the industry leader in manufacturing and distribution of deep etched & hand painted wine for a variety of entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MASTRONARDI PRODUCE-USA: Wants Plaintiffs to Appear for Deposition ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN LOPEZ, OSCAR CARLOS LOPEZ RAMIREZ and RAMONA REYES, v. MASTRONARDI PRODUCE-USA, INC. and MAROA FARMS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00484-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Compelling the Named Plaintiffs to appear for their depositions sufficiently in advance of the May 26, 2023 deadline to file a motion to certify the class; and, (2) Compelling the Plaintiffs to respond fully and completely to Interrogatory No. 1 and to sign authorizations for the release of their medical records. Mastronardi distributes fresh fruits and vegetables. The Company offers cucumbers, tomatoes, bell peppers, and eggplants. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N7WN0x at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Maria Fracassa Dwyer, Esq. Hannah K. Reisdorff, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC 500 Woodward Avenue - Suite 3500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-8300 E-mail: mdwyer@clarkhill.com hreisdorff@clarkhill.com MAURICE MAX: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maurice Max, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Maurice Max, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02941 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Maurice Max Inc. was founded in 1983. The company's line of business includes manufacturing costume jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MDL 2873: Leptien's Conditional Transfer Order Vacated ------------------------------------------------------ Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order vacating the conditional transfer of Leptien v. A. Clemente, Inc., et al.," (C.A. No. 1:22−04609, D. N.J.) for inclusion in the multi-district litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2873. Plaintiff Leptien moved to vacate the panel's order that conditionally transferred her case from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. Defendant 3M Company opposed the motion. MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; collectively, these and other per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances are referred to as PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. Leptien alleges that she developed breast cancer caused by exposure to various substances, including PFAS, halogenated hydrocarbons, heavy metals, freons, industrial alcohols and solvents, dioxin, and unspecified particulate matter and airborne waste. These substances allegedly were released from various industrial sites, including DuPont's "Chambers Works," and A. Clemente Inc. where PFAS was used in the manufacture of non-AFFF products. In short, this is a "non-AFFF" action of the type the Panel has excluded from the MDL. A conditional transfer order was issued for Leptien because plaintiff had filed a second action in the MDL alleging that her breast cancer was caused by exposure to drinking water allegedly contaminated by the use of PFAS-containing AFFF in the vicinity of New Castle County, Delaware, including at the New Castle-Wilmington Airport and Delaware Air National Guard Base. After the present action was noticed as a potential tag-along action, however, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action that was filed in the MDL. Plaintiff argues that the MDL complaint was filed in error, by different counsel than those who represent her in New Jersey, and that the MDL complaint contained significant factual mistakes--namely, alleging that plaintiff had lived in Delaware for years when in fact, according to plaintiff, she has lived her entire life in New Jersey. Accordingly, the panel finds that transfer of the action will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Leptien is already being coordinated with other actions in the District of New Jersey that pertain to the same alleged non-AFFF sources of PFAS contamination. Thus, it will proceed more efficiently if Leptien remains outside the MDL, adds the panel. "Should Leptien evolve into a more typical AFFF action, the parties or the court at that time can re-notice the action for transfer to MDL No. 2873 as a potential tag-along. At present, though, we are not persuaded that transfer is appropriate," concludes the panel. A full-text copy of the court's April 10, 2023 order to vacate is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Order_Vacating_CTO-3-23.pdf MDL 2924: Panel Denies Patterson's Remand Motion ------------------------------------------------- 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, denies the move by pro se plaintiff Perry Patterson to remand his action docketed as "Patterson v. Teva USA, et al., C.A. No. 9:21−82140" (E.D. Texas, C.A. No. 5:21−00095), which the panel previously transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to MDL No. 2924 in the Southern District of Florida. The actions in MDL No. 2924 share factual questions arising from allegations that ranitidine, the active molecule in Zantac and similar heartburn medications, can form the carcinogen NDMA, either during storage or when metabolized in the human body. The Plaintiff's sole argument in support of remand is that he is a prisoner and lacks internet access to review pretrial orders and rulings necessary to prosecute his claims. After considering plaintiff's arguments, the panel concluded that remand is not appropriate at this time and denies his motion. The panel notes that the transferee judge has not issued a suggestion of remand. Without a suggestion of remand, a party advocating Section 1407 remand "bears a strong burden of persuasion." The Plaintiff has not met that burden here, it concludes. According to the panel, Section 1407 remand is not the appropriate remedy. Moreover, remand at this juncture, while pretrial proceedings are still ongoing in the MDL, will not promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Instead, it would result in duplication of efforts and, potentially, inconsistent pretrial rulings. Plaintiff’s remedy, if any is needed, should come from the transferee court (or, failing that, from the appropriate appellate court). 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-Order_Denying_Remand-3-23.pdf MEMORIAL HEALTH: Valladolid Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michelle Valladolid, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Memorial Health Services, Case No. 23STCV05059 was removed from the Los Angeles County of Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03007-MWF-AS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Memorial Health -- https://memorial.health/ -- is a leading healthcare organization in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Teresa C. Chow, Esq. Alexander Vitruk, Esq. Dyanne J. Cho, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Phone: (310) 820-8800 Fax: (310) 820-8859 Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com avitruk@bakerlaw.com dcho@bakerlaw.com MIDWEST BANK: Potter Files Suit in D. Nebraska ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midwest Bank. The case is styled as Ezekiel D. Potter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Midwest Bank, Case No. 4:23-cv-03065 (D. Neb., April 21, 2023). The nature suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Midwest Bank -- https://www.midwestbank.net/ -- gives access to plenty of convenience with low-cost checking and savings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON LAW FIRM - ARKANSAS 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 372-1300 - and - Frederick D. Stehlik, Esq. Zachary W. Lutz-Priefert, Esq. GROSS WELCH MARKS CLARE PC LLO 2120 South 72nd Street, Suite 1500, Omaha Tower Omaha, NE 68124 Phone: (402) 392-1500 Fax: (402) 392-8101 Email: fstehlik@gwmclaw.com zlutzpriefert@gwmclaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS LAW FIRM 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue Freedom Building, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 250-3937 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN, MALAD LAW FIRM One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com MILLENNIA TAX: Fridline Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Millennia Tax Relief, LLC. The case is styled as Zachary Fridline, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Millennia Tax Relief, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00656-MWB (M.D. Pa., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Millennia Tax Relief -- https://millenniataxrelief.com/ -- is a group of expert Tax Attorneys, Enrolled Agents, CPAs and Tax Advisors who specialize in the area of tax preparation, tax debt resolution and filing back taxes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. 231 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260 Clayton, MI 63105 Phone: (314) 863-5700 Fax: (314) 863-5711 - and - Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC 30 E. Butler Ave., Ste. 215 Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (267) 468-5374 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com MOD SUPER: Joint Bid for Relief From Final Order in Pratz Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALYSSA MARIE PRATZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA, LLC, d/b/a MOD PIZZA, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-757- RJD (S.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants the Parties' Joint Motion for Relief from a Final Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). Judge Daly reviewed in detail the Joint Motion and considered it in light of the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement that was approved on June 27, 2022. The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement by Preliminary Approval Order dated Feb. 25, 2022. The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on June 27, 2022, and granted Final Approval of the Settlement. On Nov. 14, 2022, the Parties filed the Joint Motion, indicating that the Defendant had determined it inadvertently omitted 112 individuals from the Settlement Class and requesting Final Approval be amended to allow a recovery for these 112 individuals on terms identical to the other members of the Settlement Class. Judge Daly finds that the Defendant's mistake is a sufficient basis to invoke Rule 60(b), which applies to mistakes and inadvertence by parties. The Joint Motion was filed approximately five months after the final judgment. The 112 additional class members will be provided with notice of the Settlement that is substantially similar (to the extent practicable) to the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement that was earlier provided to the Rule 23 Settlement Class Members and attached as Exhibit 2-A to the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. They will have an opportunity to exclude themselves from the Settlement. The notice will include the procedure and deadline for filing exclusion request and inform them that they will be bound by the Release contained in the Settlement Agreement unless they timely exercise their right to exclusion. Based on the motions filed with the Court and the presentations made to the Court by the parties and other interested persons at the Final Approval Hearing, Judge Daly now amends final approval of the Settlement and finds that the Settlement Agreement, as amended by the Order to include an additional 112 Class Members, remains fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Rule 23 Settlement Class. Pursuant to Rule 23, Judge Daly finally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Rule 23 Settlement Class: All individuals who work or worked at a MOD Super Fast Pizza, LLC ("Defendant" or "MOD") location in the State of Illinois and who registered for or used a finger scan timekeeping system in connection with their employment with MOD from June 30, 2016, to June 30, 2021, except for those individuals who previously released their BIPA claims against the Defendant. Judge Daly confirms the appointment of (i) Plaintiff Alyssa Marie Pratz as the Class Representatives of the Rule 23 Settlement Class; and (ii) following counsel as the Class Counsel: Benjamin J. Whiting and Alex J. Dravillas, Keller Postman LLC, 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606. The Court orders the Parties to the Settlement Agreement to perform their obligations thereunder. The case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs as to the Plaintiff's and all the Rule 23 Settlement Class Members' claims against Defendants. Judge Daly adjudges that the Released Claims and all of the claims described in the Settlement Agreement are released against the Releasees. She adjudges that the Plaintiff and all the Rule 23 Settlement Class Members who have not opted out of the Rule 23 Settlement Class will be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims against the Releasees, as defined under the Settlement Agreement. Judge Daly approves payment of attorneys' fees of 35% of the settlement, along with costs and expenses of $402, to the Class Counsel, totaling $512,819.50. This amount will be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Daly approves the incentive award in the amount of $3,000 for the Class Representative Alyssa Marie Pratz, and specifically found such amount to be reasonable in light of the services performed by the Plaintiff for the Rule 23 Settlement Class. This amount will be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Parties, without further approval from the Court, are permitted to jointly agree to and adopt such amendments, modifications and expansions of the Settlement Agreement and its implementing documents so long as they are consistent in all material respects with the Amended Final Order and Judgment and do not limit the rights of the Rule 23 Settlement Class Members. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wyxrhcy from Leagle.com. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces $6B Class Suit Over Sunday Package Tickets ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Keech of OnFocus reports that as reported by Mike Scarcella with Reuters.com, the NFL faces a $6 billion class lawsuit over limiting the number of television games and driving up the cost of its Sunday Ticket Package. Sunday Ticket lets subscribers watch local and out-of-market games on Sunday, while football fans otherwise in any given market can only see a limited number of games. The case will be divided into two sets of plaintiffs classes – individual Sunday Ticket residential subscribers and commercial establishments, such as hotels and bars. Notes: Satellite provider DirecTV has the rights until the end of the 2022 to 2023 season to Sunday Ticket. At least 2.4 million residential users 48,000 commercial class members A trial is set to begin in February 2024. [GN] NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Young Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan North America, Inc. The case is styled as Scott Young, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00394 (M.D. Tenn., April 21, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability. Nissan North America, Inc. -- http://www.nissanusa.com/-- doing business as Nissan USA, is the North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC - NASHVILLE 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 255-5419 Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com - and - Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (610) 200-0580 Email: jbk@sstriallawyers.com jgs@sstriallawyers.com mbd@sstriallawyers.com mds@sstriallawyers.com - and - Michael G. Stewart, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 250-3937 Email: mstewart@stranchlaw.com NUGS.NET ENTERPRISES: McKay Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah McKay, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. NUGS.NET ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01900 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 2023), is brought for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") by knowingly disclosing to Facebook, Inc. without the requisite consent information that would readily permit an ordinary person to identify Plaintiff's and Class members' video-watching behavior, including videos they requested and/or obtained. As part of its development and operation of the Website, Defendant knowingly integrated into the Website various code, including source code, script, object code, software, computer programs and other statements or instructions. Amongst the code Defendant knowingly integrated into the Website was code for the Facebook Tracking Pixel. The Defendant integrated the Integrated Tracking Pixels for the purpose of disclosing to Facebook its subscribers' "personally identifiable information," as defined in the VPPA, along with its subscribers' video-watching behavior, among other information (collectively, "Personally Identifiable Information"), thereby allowing Defendant to gain insight into that behavior, improve its products, provide targeted marketing and advertising and offer new products, programs and services, among other things. The Plaintiff did not consent, agree, authorize or otherwise permit Defendant to disclose to Facebook her Personally Identifiable Information or related information she provided to Defendant through the Website or App. Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with any written notice that Defendant disclosed such information to Facebook through integration of the Integrated Tracking Pixels, nor did Defendant provide Plaintiff with any means of opting out of such disclosures. The Defendant nonetheless knowingly disclosed Plaintiff's Personally Identifiable Information and related information to Facebook through its integration of the Integrated Tracking Pixels. Plaintiff did not discover that Defendant disclosed her Personally Identifiable Information and related information to Facebook until approximately March 2023, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a subscriber and/or purchaser of goods or services from Defendant's streaming service nugs.net. The Defendant is a "multi-channel band-to-fan distribution network that enables over 1,000 artists, festivals, venues, and record labels to monetize live performances via branded download sites."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL L.L.P. Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 766-3534 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and - Scott R. Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Phone: (312) 358-8225 Email: scott@drurylegal.com OAKLAND NURSERY: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oakland Nursery, Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Oakland Nursery, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03324 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oakland Nursery -- https://www.oaklandnursery.com/ -- has been dedicated to bringing high quality plant material to central Ohio homes and businesses since 1940.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com OLD EMPIRE INC: Muhammad Sues Over Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------- Kareem Muhammad, Stanley Pierre, and Qashone Menchan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OLD EMPIRE INC. and VIOR TRANSPORTATION INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02495 (N.D. Ill., April 20, 2023), is brought for breach of contract, common law fraud, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and the Truth in Leasing Act ("TILA"). This case involves a classic bait-and-switch scheme meant to trick truck drivers and circumvent the lease protections of the TILA. Defendants advertised to the public, and promised Plaintiffs through their recruiters, that it would pay semi-truck owner-operators or lease-operators (hereinafter, "drivers") between 80-88% percent of the revenue for each load they hauled under Old Empire or Vior's carrier license if the drivers rented a truck from Old Empire or Vior. Then, when Plaintiffs began work, Defendants consistently lied to Plaintiffs about the real price of the load and paid them less than the agreed upon percentage of the loads they transported. The Defendants violated the ICFA by intentionally misleading Plaintiffs about the amount of money Defendants would retain from each load that Plaintiffs transported if Plaintiffs leased a truck with Defendants. Defendants also breached their contracts with Plaintiffs and violated the TILA by paying Plaintiffs less than the agreed upon percentage of revenue Defendants received for each load that Plaintiffs hauled with their equipment. Defendants also committed fraud by sending Plaintiffs doctored rate confirmation sheets that contained fake load prices, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have a CDL Class A license and worked for the Defendant. Old Empire is a federally regulated motor carrier providing transportation services to the shipping public.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq. Tex Pasley, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM 70 W. Madison St., Ste. 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 580-0100 Email: cwilmes@hsplegal.com tpasley@hsplegal.com PHILIP WILLIAMS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philip Williams Posters, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Philip Williams Posters, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02947 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Philip Williams Posters, Inc. doing business as Poster Museum -- https://postermuseum.com/ -- has the largest collection of vintage posters in the world, including French travel, museums, and international food & beverage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com PLDT INC: Claims Lead Plaintiffs Lack Sufficient Financial Interest ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Viktor D. Cabuenas of GMA Integrated News reports that Pangilinan-led PLDT Inc. on April 17, 2023 argued against the motions of two individuals in the United States to serve as the lead plaintiffs in a class action suit as they lacked sufficient financial interest. In a regulatory filing, PLDT identified the two individuals as Sophia Olsson and Kevin Douglas, who submitted separate motions to the court as represented by different law firms. Olsson was reported to own two PLDT shares and suffered $22.69 in losses; and Kevin Douglas, who said he owned 35 PLDT shares and suffered $240.23 in losses. Both plaintiffs said the losses were incurred following PLDT's disclosure of the budget overrun, calling on the court to award them reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the legal action. PLDT late last year disclosed an initial budget overrun of P48 billion, representing 12.7% of its capital expenditure from 2019 to 2022. This was later scaled down to P33 billion, after settlements with major vendors. According to PLDT, Olsson and Douglas' losses "fall far short" of the basic requirement needed for a lead plaintiff to show that he or she is an adequate representative on behalf of the putative class. "[O]lsson's and Douglas' nominal losses show that they 'lack sufficient financial interest in the outcome of the [US Class Action] to incentivize them to monitor counsel's performance and control the litigation on behalf of the putative class," the filing read. Just last week PLDT announced the official exit of key officers, including the early retirement of Chief Financial Officer Anabelle Chua effective April 16, 2023, and Senior Vice President and Network Head Mario Tamayo effective April 14, 2023. The company saw its full-year telco core income climb 10% to P33.116 billion in 2022, while its net income declined by 60% to P10.485 billion from P26.367 billion. Revenues climbed 6% to P205.245 billion, including P82.0 billion from Individual business, P57.4 billion from Home, and P47.5 billion from Enterprise. [GN] RAISING CANE'S: Court Won't Remand Rodriguez Suit to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Caya Rodriguez v. Raising Cane's USA, L.L.C., et al., Case No. CV 22-8296-JFW (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to State Court. On Jan. 12, 2023, Plaintiff Caya Rodriguez filed a Motion for Order Remanding Action to State Court. On Jan. 23, 2023, Defendants Raising Cane's USA, L.L.C. and Raising Cane's Restaurants, L.L.C. filed their Opposition. On Jan. 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Reply. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, Judge Walter finds that the matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for April 24, 2023 is vacated and the matter taken off calendar. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of the Defendants in the State of California from approximately December of 2021 to May of 2022. On Aug. 26, 2022, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, filed a Complaint against the Defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging the following claims for relief: (1) failure to pay overtime wages (Labor Code Section 510); (2) failure to pay minimum wages (Labor Code Section 1197); (3) failure to provide meal periods (Labor Code Section 512); (4) failure to provide rest periods (Labor Code Section 226.7); (5) waiting time penalties for failure to timely pay wages upon termination (Labor Code Sections 201-203; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements (Labor Code Section 226(a)); (7) failure to timely pay wages during employment (Labor Code Section 204); (8) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses (Labor Code Section 2802); and (9) unfair competition in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.). On Nov. 14, 2022, the Defendants removed the action, alleging that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). In support of their Notice of Removal, the Defendants estimated that the aggregate value of all matters in controversy exceeds $13,763,875, "sing conservative and reasonable assumptions grounded in the allegations of the Complaint. In his Motion, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million necessary for CAFA jurisdiction. The Defendants contend that the evidence satisfies the amount in controversy requirement. In support of their Opposition, they provided evidence to substantiate the amount in controversy. The Plaintiff disagrees with the Defendants' calculation of the amount in controversy, claiming that is based on speculative and unsupported assumptions. Judge Walter has considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers and disagrees. The Defendants' estimates -- and the evidentiary basis for them -- are premised on reasonable assumptions, and he concludes that the Defendants have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The Plaintiff also moves to remand the action on the grounds that the Court does not have equitable jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claim for equitable relief under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. Although the Court may lack equitable jurisdiction over this claim, Judge Walter concludes that dismissal of this claim (without prejudice) rather than the remand of the action (or claim) would be more appropriate. For these reasons, Judge Walter denies Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Assuming the parties agree that the Court lacks equitable jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claim for equitable relief under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and that the Court should dismiss that claim without prejudice, they will file a stipulation and proposed order to that effect. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2baxs57c from Leagle.com. REALPAGE INC: Bertlshofer Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Mary Bertlshofer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; and SIMPSON PROPERTY GROUP, LLLP, Case No. 2:23-cv-00018, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00377 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Walter W. Noss, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY PC 707 Broadway, Ste. 1410 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 625-5621 Email: cburke@koreintillery.com wnoss@koreintillery.com - and - Garrett Webster Wotkyns SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 N Scottsdale Road, Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Phone: (480) 428-0142 Fax: (866) 505-8036 Email: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen C. Whittaker, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (IRVINE) 3161 Michelson Dr., Ste. 1200 Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: (949) 451-4337 Email: cwhittaker@gibsondunn.com REALPAGE INC: Corradino Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Zachary Miller Corradino and Samantha Taylor Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; BELL PARTNERS, INC.; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CONAM MANAGEMENT CORP.; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; LANTOWER LUXURY LIVING, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY; MID- AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; PINNACLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; RPM LIVING, LLC; UDR, INC.; and ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-20165, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 21, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00379 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Elliot Criden, Esq. Lindsey Caryn Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE PA 7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Phone: (305) 357-9000 Fax: 357-9050 Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com REALPAGE INC: Schmidig Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Shelley Schmidig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; THOMA BRAVO, L.P.; AMLI MANAGEMENT COMPANY; ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL COMPANY; APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC; ASSET LIVING, LLC; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL LLC; BH MANAGEMENT LLC; THE BOZZUTO GROUP; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CORTLAND PROPERTIES, INC.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; MID AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN PROPERTIES; RPM LIVING LLC; SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; and WINNCOMPANIES LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00108, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 21, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00391 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Fax: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com swilliams@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Leanna Marie Anderson, Esq. SONNENSCHEIN, NATH & ROSENTHAL 601 S Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704 Phone: (213) 623-9300 Fax: (213) 623-9924 Email: landerson@sonnenschein.com REJECT SHOP: Shortchanges Salaried Managers, Cannan Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- David Marin-Guzman of Financial Review reports that the Reject Shop is facing a class action for allegedly shortchanging staff millions of dollars in what is the first in a wave of litigation against ASX-listed retailers over underpayments. Adero Law launched Federal Court action against The Reject Shop last week and is alleging the discount retailer underpaid up to 1400 salaried managers an average $40,000 to $65,000 due to excessive hours that brought their hourly pay below the award minimum. Lead claimant Bradley Cannan, who managed a Tasmanian store from 2017 to 2020, was allegedly underpaid $98,000 for working 50 to 55 hours a week when he was paid only for 40 hours. He says the low-cost operator’s wage budgets meant he could only support himself and one other worker for a full day, forcing him to work 8am to 7pm to open and close the shop. "When I sat down and worked out what am I actually getting paid for the hours I'm doing, I was only getting paid roughly what my employees were [on an hourly basis]," he said. "I think it's pretty much across the board. At the time I knew most of the managers in Tasmania and all of them were always working overtime, in excess of their eight hours a day." Retailers 'lying low' The underpayment of salaried workers due to very long hours has plagued major retailers such as Coles and Woolworths in recent years, and Adero says it is preparing to launch further underpayment actions against 10, so far unnamed, ASX-listed retailers. While Woolworths has self-reported $750 million in underpayments, Adero principal Rory Markham said many retailers were lying low about the underpayment of salaried staff. He argued the law firm was filling a regulatory gap in areas where unions and the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) were not taking action and employers had an incentive not to self-report. "We saw Woolworths as a grade A student in front of the room that wanted to do the right thing and had a sensible system to remunerate," he said. "The dearth of retail self-reporting [in the rest of the industry] is more akin to back-seat students that have sat in disregard to their obligations. "We see our role as a form of catch-up … extending standards at Woolworths and Coles to others in the sector." Obligations 'taken seriously' Adero's class action against The Reject Shop represents the requisite minimum of seven claimants but has potential coverage of 1000 to 1400 staff from 2017 to 2023. The Reject Shop has about 450 stores, and there are about two to three staff members per store who would be eligible to join. Mr Cannan said that when Woolworths revealed its underpayment in late 2019, The Reject Shop introduced a clause in its contracts for managers not to work more than 40 hours a week without consultation, but he "never got the wages [budget] to support that". A spokesman for The Reject Shop said it was "keenly aware of recent instances in the Australian retail and hospitality sectors where there has been non-compliance with statutory and award obligations - including payment obligations - owed by employers to employees". "The Reject Shop takes its obligations to team members seriously and has processes in place to monitor compliance with employment laws, including external annual reviews," he said. "Over the past few months, The Reject Shop has been in contact with Adero Law in relation to seven former employees who claim that they were underpaid during their employment with the company (claim periods relate to February 2016 to April 2021 with one of the claims being for less than $20). "The Reject Shop has committed that if there has been any under-award payments to team members, this will be corrected. However, Adero has not clarified details of these claims." 'Chilling effect' Mr Markham declined to estimate a total underpayment bill, but said "subject to an appropriate class sign-up, the total underpayments could be well in the millions". He said the firm's modelling on The Reject Shop's own records showed individual underpayments were "substantially higher" than at Coles and Woolworths. "That's something we haven't typically seen - records that employers are sitting on are pointing to very large systemic underpayments and no desire to correct that position voluntarily," he said. The size of the action will also depend on the FWO’s continuing Federal Court action against Coles and Woolworths, which test interpretations of overtime and other award conditions that could potentially blow out the retailers' wage bills by several times. Mr Markham noted the FWO's litigation against Coles and Woolworths appeared to have had an unfortunate "chilling effect" on other big retailers because there had been a substantial drop-off in self-reporting underpayments. The FWO has so far only taken legal action against major corporations that have already self-reported. But Mr Markham said similar underpayments were probably widespread because a decade ago ASX- listed retailers had sought to force labour costs down for middle management, and that wage control through salary had been the easiest way to control costs. "There are very large cohorts of workers engaged by large retailers post-2014 on salaries intended to discharge the award but in many respects the connection between award entitlements and salary became wholly disconnected," he said. The practice even extended to white-collar workplaces such as the Commonwealth Bank, which last week admitted to knowingly underpaying 7400 salaried staff $16 million as part of a decade of ignoring obligations to ensure their pay stayed above minimum rates. Adero has previously taken class actions over underpayments in the mining industry, including BHP and major labour hire companies, and has an ongoing action against Justin Hemmes' Merivale hospitality group. But in recent years, the firm's use of litigation funders has been heavily scrutinised by the courts and criticised by unions and employer groups because of the risk that high litigation fees would leave workers with less than half their unpaid wages. Mr Markham said the courts' comments had prompted the firm to take a different approach for simpler "wage audit" cases and that the firm would fund the actions itself on a no win, no fee basis. Adero aims to take only 10 to 15 per cent of the projected underpayment and has a cap at 30 per cent so that workers will get “at least 70 per cent” of an outcome, and probably more. "We've looked at the mirror very hard, we've listened to the lovers and the haters and we think this is the right path," Mr Markham said. [GN] RELOGISTICS SERVICES: Ortega Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Rafael Ortega, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Relogistics Services, LLC, Case No. VCU293788 was removed from the Tulare County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00610-SKO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Relogistics -- https://www.relogistics.com/ -- is the leading provider of reusable pallet and container management services with over 190 locations across North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 286-0246 Fax: (310) 407-5391 Email: mark@yablonovichlaw.com - and - Tony Roberts, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM, PC 2650 Camino Del Rio N., Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 234-2833 Fax: (619) 234-4048 Email: troberts@maralawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy Elaine Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 820-8800 Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Ste. 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 659-2618 Fax: (415) 659-2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com REVENTICS LLC: Trusty Files Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reventics LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jonathan Trusty, Marie Netrosio, Michaela Mujica-Steiner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Reventics LLC, Regional One Health, Case No. 1:23-cv-00995 (S.D. Cal., April 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Reventics -- https://reventics.com/ -- delivers Provider Engagement Solutions that enhance physician reimbursement and compliance while improving clinical quality measures.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Enger Saliman, Esq. SALIMAN LAW LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 907-7652 Email: mark@salimanlaw.com RIO TINTO: Panguna Landowners Sue Over Human Rights Abuses ---------------------------------------------------------- Myriam Robin of Financial Review reports that the sheer environmental degradation and considerable loss of life that followed Rio Tinto's running of Bougainville's Panguna gold and copper mine must rank it as one of the world's greatest mining debacles. Seven years after Rio transferred its majority shareholding to the Papua New Guinea and Bougainville governments, and 25 years after the end of the civil war sparked by the mine, Panguna's landowners want Rio Tinto's culpability for all it unleashed to be tested in London's courts. They have this month appointed Australian human rights and class action lawyer Stewart Levitt to represent them in possible litigation. The plan is to use the precedent established by BHP's 2015 Samarco Dam disaster in Brazil. Last year a British court granted leave for some 200,000 Brazilians to file an $8.8 billion class action in London, due to the potential inadequacy of the Brazilian legal system to deal with a global (and UK-listed) mining giant. Levitt, a Sydney-based litigator (and published poet), was in Arawa this month to meet the landowners over the Panguna matter, which is still in its earliest stages. The intention is to target Rio over "personal injury suffered, intergenerational trauma, damage to property and any violation of human rights". Levitt has self-funded himself to date, but doesn't expect to face difficulties securing a litigation funder. Talks with a potential UK legal partner are apparently well advanced. The highlights of Levitt's lengthy career have included his securing a $98 million payout for 7-11 franchisees in 2022, and a $30 million settlement paid to 447 residents of Palm Island in 2018, after police were found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act in their response to riots over a death in custody. Last month, however, his firm Levitt Robinson Solicitors settled what had been billed as a $500 million class action against Aveo for a mere $11 million. As a (possibly unprecedented) condition, the firm also published an acknowledgement that Aveo's contracts "were lawful, in accordance with industry standards", and expressed "regret for any distress or anxiety which Aveo residents and staff have experienced" as a result of its action. In 2020, 156 residents of Bougainville worked with the Melbourne-based Human Rights Law Centre to file a complaint with a division of the Australian Treasury against Rio Tinto. A year later, Rio Tinto agreed to fund an assessment of the "actual and potential environmental and human rights impacts of the mine". Its first phase kicked off last December. The Human Rights Law Centre has nothing to do with Levitt's appointment, and any resultant lawsuits would presumably overlap with the human rights investigation. The Panguna mine, for what it's worth, is mothballed, though still filled with as much gold and copper as it was when mining abruptly ceased in 1989. It retains an ongoing fascination for the mining world's entrepreneurs and investors, not to mention Panguna's indigenous landowners. No one's found a way to reopen it, yet. [GN] ROWDY BEVERAGE: Chauca Files Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rowdy Beverage, Inc. The case is styled as Sergio Chauca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rowdy Beverage, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00730-L-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Rowdy Beverage, Inc. doing business as Rowdy Energy -- https://rowdyenergy.com/ -- is more than an energy drink. Unrivaled in levels of electrolytes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick John Klorczyk, III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue, Suite 304 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7129 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com RUGSUSA LLC: Dray Files Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RugsUSA, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Dray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RugsUSA, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03017-JFW-MAA (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2023). The nature suit is stated as Other Contract. RugsUSA, LLC -- https://www.rugsusa.com/ -- manufactures rugs and other home decoration products. The Company supplies and retail products through online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Kyungsik Cho, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. DOVEL AND LUNER LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Fax: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com grace@dovel.com simon@dovel.com SANDESTIN BEACH: Valerio Sues Over Discrimination and Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE VALERIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANDESTIN BEACH HOTEL, LTD. D/B/A HILTON SANDESTIN BEACH GOLF RESORT & SPA, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-08492-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla., April 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Statutes. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a shift lead and cafeteria attendant at Hilton Sandestin Beach Golf Resort & Spa in Miramar, Florida from February 6, 2019, until her termination on March 8, 2022. Sandestin Beach Hotel, LTD., doing business as Hilton Sandestin Beach Golf Resort & Spa, is a full service resort hotel located in Miramar, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayton M. Connors, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF CLAYTON M. CONNORS, PLLC 4400 Bayou Blvd., Suite 32A Pensacola, FL 32503 Telephone: (850) 473-0401 Facsimile: (850) 473-1388 E-mail: cmc@westconlaw.com SEQUIUM ASSET: Judgment on Pleadings in Bertolino FDCPA Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TRACY BERTOLINO, Plaintiff v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-11139-JGD (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Bertolino claims that a July 16, 2021 letter she received from the Defendant, Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC ("SAS"), proposing to settle a debt that Bertolino owed to SAS' client, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") because it failed to inform Bertolino whether interest was accruing on the debt or specify whether SAS' client was waiving statutory interest. By her Class Action Complaint, Bertolino has asserted claims against SAS, on behalf of herself and a putative class of Massachusetts consumers who received similar correspondence from SAS, for violations of Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and 1692f. The matter is before the Court on the Motion of Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC for Judgment on the Pleadings. By its motion, SAS argues that Bertolino's claims must be dismissed pursuant Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it had no legal obligation to disclose information regarding interest in its Settlement Letter to the Plaintiff. Bertolino, is an individual who resides in Essex County, Massachusetts. Prior to July 16, 2021, she incurred financial obligations to Bank of America, N.A., which arose out of consumer transactions that she made for personal, family and/or household purposes. Following a default on her debt, Bertolino's financial obligations were reduced to judgment. Bank of America subsequently sold the Plaintiff's debt to a non-party creditor, Cach, LLC. Defendant SAS is a collection agency with an office address in Marietta, Georgia. It works on behalf of creditors to collect and attempt to collect debts incurred by consumers for personal, family and household purposes. SAS uses the mail, telephone and the internet to seek repayment of debts owed to its clients. It is undisputed that at least at times, it acts as a debt collector as defined in the FDCPA. CACH and SAS entered into a contract under which SAS agreed to collect Bertolino's debt on behalf of CACH. SAS subsequently sent a Letter to the Plaintiff, dated July 16, 2021, in which it offered to resolve the unpaid balance due on Bertolino's debt. Bertolino relies upon this Letter to support her claims that SAS violated the FDCPA. Notably, however, neither the Account Information table nor the text of the Letter specifies whether interest is accruing on the balance at the rate prescribed by Massachusetts law. Nor does the Letter otherwise reference interest on the debt. By her claims in this action, Bertolino asserts that the absence of any such information rendered SAS' Settlement Letter false, deceptive and/or misleading under Section 1692e of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. She further asserts that the Letter constituted an unfair or unconscionable means of collecting the outstanding debt under Section 1692f of the statute, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f. The Plaintiff allegedly is aware that judgments generally accrue interest. According to Bertolino, the total amount due on her debt has been increasing since the date when the debt was reduced to judgment on April 29, 2011, as a result of the accumulation of statutory interest. She claims that SAS' failure to disclose whether interest was accruing on her debt or whether CACH was waiving its right to collect statutory interest led her to suspect that the Settlement Letter was fraudulent. Thus, according to her, she was unable to determine whether the Settlement Letter came from a legitimate creditor, a fraudulent wrongdoer hoping to induce erroneous payment, or for a debt that was already satisfied. She also alleges that her confusion regarding interest made it impossible for her to evaluate the offer contained in the Letter or her options for addressing the outstanding debt. Consequently, Bertolino contends that she was unable to make any payment on the debt. The fundamental issue before the Court is whether a debt collector violates the FDCPA when it fails to state that the interest clock is (or is not) running when offering to settle a debt for a sum certain. The parties agree that the First Circuit has not addressed this issue. However, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and trial courts within that Circuit have considered the matter directly. Those courts have held that a debt collection notice containing an offer to settle a debt for a specified amount is not required to disclose whether the account is accruing interest and fees. Judge Dein agrees that Bertolino has failed to state plausible claims for relief against SAS under the FDCPA. Among other things, she holds that when viewed from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, the Settlement Letter could only reasonably be read as an offer to extinguish Bertolino's debt upon payment of the specified amount. The Letter did not violate the FDCPA. She further holds that there was nothing misleading about the Settlement Letter because it made clear that payment of the amount indicated in the Letter would extinguish the debt. Last, the FDCPA does not require that a collection notice anticipate every potential collateral consequence that could arise in connection with the payment or nonpayment of a debt. For these reasons, Judge Dein concludes that Bertolino has failed to state plausible claims for relief against SAS under the FDCPA. Therefore, she allows the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Memorandum of Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/sss4fzav from Leagle.com. SINGTEL OPTUS: Faces Data Breach Suit Affecting 10-Mil. Customers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Floyd Alexander Hunt of LSG Online reports that Slater and Gordon, a leading class action law firm, has taken legal action against Optus for a data breach that exposed the personal information of up to 10 million current and former customers in September 2022. The class action accuses Optus of breaching privacy, telecommunication, and consumer laws, as well as the company's internal policies. Slater and Gordon assert that Optus failed to protect or take reasonable steps to protect its customers' data, failed to destroy or de-identify former customers' personal information and failed to ensure that access to data was strictly limited. The allegation is that Optus failed to fulfil its contractual obligations and duty of care to protect customers from harm arising from unauthorised access and disclosure of their personal information. Slater and Gordan argue that this harm was reasonably foreseeable if customer data was compromised. Slater and Gordon Class Actions Practice Group Leader Ben Hardwick said that this was "an extremely serious privacy breach both in terms of the number of people affected and the nature of the information that was compromised". He added, "Optus should have had adequate measures in place to prevent that". "Very real risks were created by the disclosure of this private information that Optus customers had every right to believe was securely protected by their telecommunications and internet provider," said Hardwick. "Concerningly, the data breach has also potentially jeopardised the safety of a large number of particularly vulnerable groups of Optus customers, such as victims of domestic violence, stalking and other crimes, as well as those working in frontline occupations including the defence force and policing," he said. More than 100,000 current and former Optus customers have registered for the class action already, seeking compensation for losses caused by the data breach, including the time and money spent replacing identity documents, measures to protect their privacy, and damages for non-economic loss such as distress, frustration, and disappointment. The lead applicant, a Victorian man who wishes to remain anonymous due to privacy concerns, said that he had been left feeling "vulnerable, exposed, and worried" after learning his personal information had been compromised. "It feels like only a matter of time before I get scammed or defrauded, which is a constant worry that I didn't have before I was let down by Optus," he said. "It feels like only a matter of time before I get scammed or defrauded, which is a constant worry that I didn't have before I was let down by Optus," said the Victorian applicant. "I would have thought that as big a company as Optus is, there would have much better data security in place than what it turns out they had, which is pretty concerning," he said. Another lead applicant, a woman from Queensland who also chose to remain anonymous, is one of the many thousands of affected Optus customers whose ID documents had to be replaced. "It was incredibly stressful trying to get answers from Optus about what information had been exposed and then taking action to rectify the damage so I could try to stop anything else from happening," said the Queensland applicant. "I spent a lot of time changing passwords to all of my accounts, have been constantly checking that money hasn't been stolen, and making sure I've done everything I can to protect myself," she said. "One of the worst aspects of all this was the fact that I had no control over what had happened, so it's been pretty overwhelming." [GN] SNAP NURSE: Ramirez Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 1:21-cv-00762-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and order dissemination of notice. 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/3H89bdj 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 STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- RAYCINE SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV08804 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide uninterrupted meal breaks and rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide pay for sick leave, failure to timely pay all wages due, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in California from about March 2015 through and including June 2022. Starbucks Corporation is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Elkin, Esq. Jessica Gamboa, Esq. Benjamin McLain, Esq. ELKIN GAMBOA, LLP 4119 W. Burbank Blvd., Suite 110 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 372-1202 Facsimile: (323) 372-1216 E-mail: michael@elkingamboa.com jessica@elkingamboa.com ben@elkingamboa.com - and - Alfredo Nava, Esq. Yameen Salahuddin, Esq. LAW OFFFICE OF ALFREDO NAVA JR., APC 3500 W. Beverly Blvd. Montbello, CA 90640 Telephone: (562) 384-9311 Facsimile: (855) 777-0925 E-mail: alfredo@lawofficeofalfredonava.com yameen@lawofficeofalfredonava.com STATE FARM: Dismissal of Any Illusory Policy Theory in Sisia Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KIMBERLY K. SISIA, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-12833, Non-Argument Calendar (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part the dismissal of Sisia's claims. Georgia's renewal statute can rescue previously filed claims from statutes of limitations if the claims are sufficiently similar and have not been decided on their merits. Sisia alleges that she was injured in a 2009 car crash. Her insurance policy with State Farm entitled her to "reasonable medical expenses incurred for bodily injury." Sisia sought treatment for her injuries, including $4,853 in chiropractic care and $3,195 for physical therapy. She claims that State Farm only paid for $1,254 of the charges, leaving $6,794 unpaid. To resolve this appeal, the Eleventh Circuit must analyze three complaints. Sisia first sued State Farm in 2012 in Georgia state court--her original complaint. A year later, she filed a "First Amended Complaint" in the same case. After State Farm moved for summary judgment on the original complaint and to dismiss the second, the state court issued a somewhat counterintuitive ruling. It dismissed all the claims in the amended complaint but allowed what remained in the original complaint to continue, deciding that Sisia had not abandoned her original Complaint when she filed the First Amended Complaint but instead intended to further expand her claims. In parsing the complaints, the state court found differences between the claims. In its view, the amended claim (although entitled "Breach of Contract") alleged only that the insurance policy language was "illusory." The court decided the policy language matched "applicable statutory language," so it dismissed any claim "that the policy language at issue is `illusory'" on the merits. It also dismissed the state law class action count and a count for attorneys' fees. But the court reasoned that the original claim presented issues of material fact. This claim for medical expenses survived the court's order. For some reason, the state action stalled. In 2021 -- about nine years after first suing -- Sisia voluntarily dismissed the case and refiled in federal court. But she faced a hurdle: Georgia has a six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims. To get around this limitation, Sisia relied on Georgia's renewal statute, which permits a plaintiff to dismiss a case and refile in federal court within the original applicable period of limitations or within six months after the discontinuance or dismissal. The federal district court still dismissed the case as time-barred. It decided that Sisia's current breach of contract claim constitutes an attempt to revive the previously adjudicated illusory policy claim from her amended complaint. As a result, it also denied as moot Sisia's motion for class certification. The court later denied both her motion to reconsider and motion to amend her complaint. Sisia now appeals. The Eleventh Circuit explains that Georgia's renewal statute contains a logical constraint: it cannot revive cases or claims that were previously "decided on their merits." That background provides a deceptively simple rule for this case: whatever claims the state court dismissed from the amended complaint may not be renewed, but any claim substantially similar to the original complaint may be renewed in this federal action. There is the complication: all three complaints share similar elements. As the district court recognized, the federal complaint mentions (more than once) legal arguments similar to those Sisia advanced as part of her claim that the policy was "illusory." Because the state court dismissed this claim on the merits, it is ineligible for renewal. At the same time, Sisia's original claim for unpaid medical expenses survived. And in this respect, the federal complaint is "substantially the same" as the original. The original describes Sisia's policy, her accident, and State Farm's alleged refusal to pay for her medical expenses. So does the federal complaint. To recover these expenses, Sisia pressed three theories: "Breach of Contract," "Breach of Private Duty," and "Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing." Given the "remedial" nature of O.C.G.A. Section 9-2-61(a) and its liberal construction, the Eleventh Circuit holds that Sisia could renew her claim for medical expenses using the three theories of recovery explicitly set forth in her federal complaint. But because the state court already dismissed the amended complaint, Sisia may not renew any legal theory or claim that the policy is "illusory." That has been decided on the merits. To the extent that the federal complaint tries to revive this theory, the Eleventh Circuit affirms the district court's conclusion that it is time-barred. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit agrees with the district court that Sisia's renewed medical expenses claim is not otherwise barred by claim preclusion. The medical expenses claim remained pending until Sisia voluntarily dismissed it. No final judgment exists and claim preclusion is unavailable. In sum, the Eleventh Circuit affirms only the dismissal of any "illusory policy" theory and reverses the court's dismissal of Sisia's other claims. It dismisses as moot Sisia's appeals of her motion to reconsider and motion to amend her complaint. It remands for the court to consider Sisia's motion for conditional class certification and for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3n4yc75u from Leagle.com. SUDLER PROPERTY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Stauber Says -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN STAUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUDLER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000411 (Ill. Cir. Ct., 18th Jud. Ct., Dupage Cty., April 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of express contract, and breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose personal identifiable information (PII) was compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII; (ii) warn them of its inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively monitor its network for security vulnerabilities and incidents. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of the Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) lost or diminished value of PII; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII; (iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the data breach; (iv) the loss of time needed to take appropriate measures to avoid unauthorized and fraudulent charges; (v) charges and fees associated with fraudulent charges on their accounts; and (vi) the continued and certainly an increased risk to their PII. Sudler Property Management is a real estate management company located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com TORY BURCH: Wilkins to Amend Suit to Allege Parties' Citizenship ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANJANEE WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORY BURCH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-CV-422 RLW (E.D. Mo.), Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri orders the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to the action. The matter is before the Court on review of the file. Judge White explains that courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists. The Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), the district courts have jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million and any member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant. Put another way, CAFA only requires minimal diversity among the parties. When jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the pleadings must set forth with specificity the citizenship of the parties. An LLC's citizenship, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, is the citizenship of each of its members. The Complaint alleges that the Defendant is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in New York City, New York. It does not, however, identify the individual members of the LLC or disclose their citizenship. To properly establish citizenship of the LLC, Judge White says the Plaintiff must identify the citizenship of each of its members. For any members of the LLC that are corporations, the Plaintiff must establish each corporate member's state of incorporation and principal place of business. While there is little doubt that minimal diversity exists in the matter, Judge White says the Complaint is defective because it does not properly set forth the citizenship of the Defendant. The Plaintiff is granted 14 days to file an amended complaint that alleges the citizenship of each member of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was to file an Amended Complaint that alleges facts establishing the citizenship of all parties to the action on May 2, 2023. If the Plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with the Order, the matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p83fk5w from Leagle.com. TWITTER INC: More Former Workers Join Suit Over Mass Layoffs ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Iafolla of Bloomberg Law reports that Twitter Inc.'s legal battles over its mass layoffs last fall continue to grow, with two more former workers filing class action complaints and approximately 2,000 ex-employees pursuing claims in individual arbitration. The social media company owned and operated by Elon Musk's recently minted X Corp. faces challenges both in and out of court because many, but not all, of its former workers signed binding arbitration agreements. Twitter included the contracts in the packet of documents given to job applicants who were offered a position. The outcomes of those legal fights will test the company's strategy for dealing with the fallout of its massive and sudden cuts to Twitter's workforce, particularly its handling of worker severance packages. Musk fired about half of Twitter's 7,500 workers in November, following his $44 billion purchase of the company. Layoffs continued into 2023, reportedly bringing the company's headcount under 2,000. The layoffs and subsequent legal action are just part of the chaos that's engulfed Twitter since Musk took over in October. The company also has rolled back its expansive employee telework policy, called on workers to sign a pledge to remain at an "extremely hardcore" Twitter or quit, and eliminated the blue verification check marks from users' accounts unless they pay for them. Prominent plaintiffs' attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC was the first to strike at the Musk-owned Twitter, filing a lawsuit on the eve of the big November layoff alleging that the company failed to provide the legally required notices prior to mass termination. Although Twitter pushed that case out of court, Liss-Riordan has continued filing lawsuits. She added two more class action complaints this month, bringing her total of pending court cases against the company to eight. Liss-Riordan said her firm also represents about 1,700 ex-Twitter workers in a mass-arbitration campaign against the company. "It is a lot more work than traditional class actions," she said of the mass-arbitration approach. Liss-Riordan has 15 years of experience turning to large-scale arbitration efforts when her clients are locked out of court, staffing up and building expertise while mounting campaigns against trucking companies, gig economy firms, strip clubs, and other businesses, she said. And Liss-Riordan isn't alone in targeting Twitter with mass-arbitration filings. Outten & Golden LLP; Kamerman, Uncyk, Soniker & Klein PC; and the Bloom Firm PC each represent groups of about 100 former employees pursuing individual arbitrations against the company, according to attorneys at those firms. An auto-response message from Twitter's press contact email sent a poop emoji when asked for comment on the allegations against the company. Tailored Claims The claims former Twitter workers brought in arbitration overlap with some of those in lawsuits. Twitter's alleged bait-and-switch on its severance package is a major focus of many arbitration cases, leading to claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and unfair competition, according to lawyers representing the former Twitter workers. The ex-employees allege Twitter broke its promise to provide severance packages at least as favorable as those given before Musk bought the firm. According to one lawsuit, Twitter pledged to pay a lump sum amount that would include at least two months' salary, a pro-rated bonus, cash value of equity that would have vested three months after the separation date, and money to continue health-care coverage. Instead, they say they were offered only one month's salary in exchange for a full release of any legal claims. Unlike class action complaints, which require allegations that are common to a class or subgroups of a class, claims in arbitration can be tailored to the individual plaintiff. Depending on the worker, current arbitration claims against Twitter include discrimination based on race, age, and other protected characteristics; retaliation for taking leave; failure to reimburse expenses and pay all wages on time; and violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires a certain amount of notice before a mass layoff, lawyers said. Settlement Leverage Some of the firms representing former Twitter staffers regularly collaborate with one another to help handle the massive amount of work triggered by mass-arbitration campaigns. Attorney Jahan Sagafi said his team at Outten & Golden has been working on Twitter arbitrations with attorneys at Kamerman Uncyk and Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe LLP. "A lot of plaintiffs' lawyers value community and collaboration," he said. "It's a win-win for the clients and the lawyers." Although mass arbitrations are more laborious than class actions, the cost to the companies—which are generally required to foot the bill for arbitration—gives plaintiffs some of the settlement leverage they could get from suing as a class. Each individual arbitration can run tens of thousands of dollars in fees. Uber Technologies Inc., for example, paid at least $146 million in 2019 to resolve the bulk of the more than 60,000 arbitration claims related to drivers' alleged employment misclassification. Mass arbitrations also may be more expensive to settle than class actions, said Amy Schmitz, a law professor at Ohio State University who's written extensively on arbitration. Participating in an arbitration requires much more time and attention from a plaintiff than a class action, Schmitz said. That means plaintiffs who are willing to commit to an arbitration are often "squeaky wheels" who want to be involved and be heard, rather than just being in it for the money, she said. 'Dragging its Feet' Twitter has responded thus far by slow walking the arbitration process, according to attorneys representing former company employees. "We are frustrated that Twitter has been dragging its feet every step of the way," said Lisa Bloom of the Bloom Firm. "They're just doing everything as slowly as possible. It's a common but frustrating tactic." The company has delayed paying invoices and picking arbitrators, and has been asking its former workers to produce copies of their arbitration agreements, plaintiffs' lawyers said. Although defendants in arbitration have latitude to stretch out the proceedings, the Federal Arbitration Act provides a path back to court if the delay reaches a point when a defendant has effectively waived its right to arbitration. The US Supreme Court made it easier to prove such a waiver with its 2022 decision in Morgan v. Sundance, which said a party doesn't have to show they suffered prejudice by their opponent's actions to move the dispute out of arbitration. Liss-Riordan said she's prepared to call Twitter on delays that cross a line, but the company's conduct so far is similar to other businesses facing mass arbitrations. The cases are in their early stages, with a lot more action to come, she said. "I look forward to deposing Musk," Liss-Riordan said. "I look forward to deposing him 1,700 times if necessary." [GN] VETERANS AFFAIRS: Fed. Cir. Tosses Dolbin's Appeal From Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIMOTHY J. DOLBIN, Claimant-Appellant v. DENIS McDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee, Case No. 2021-2373 (Fed. Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismisses Mr. Dolbin's appeal from a judgment. The judgment was issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying his petition for writ of mandamus and dismissing his motion for class certification as moot. Mr. Dolbin, an Air Force veteran, filed claims for service-connected disability compensation in 2008 and 2011. Following decisions by the regional office (RO) and remands by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, Mr. Dolbin's claims were again remanded by the Board in 2017. In April 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) offered him the opportunity to transfer his claims from the legacy appeals system to the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP), a pilot program implemented by the VA pursuant to the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-55, Section 4(a), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017) (VAIMA). Mr. Dolbin opted to participate in RAMP and have his claims processed in the "supplemental claim" lane. In February 2019, the RO issued a decision on Mr. Dolbin's claims. Mr. Dolbin then appealed the decision to the Board and the Board docketed his appeal according to RAMP rather than his original position in the legacy appeals system. Mr. Dolbin requested that the Board advance his case on its docket under 38 U.S.C. Section 5109B, which provides that the Veterans Benefit Administration give previously remanded claims "expeditious treatment," and 38 U.S.C. Section 7112, which provides that the Secretary will take such actions as necessary to provide for the expeditious treatment of previously remanded claims. The Board denied his motion, concluding that he failed to show sufficient cause to allow his appeal to be considered out of docket number order. Mr. Dolbin filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Veterans Court asking the court to compel the Board to return his appeal to its original place on the docket and afford it expeditious treatment. In addition, he filed a motion for certification of a class consisting of claimants with active appeals that have been adjudicated by the Board in the Legacy appeals system and returned to the Board in the VAIMA system but have not been returned to their original place on the docket or been afforded expeditious treatment. On Aug. 26, 2021, the Veterans Court issued an order denying Mr. Dolbin's mandamus petition and dismissing his class certification request as moot. Mr. Dolbin now appeals. On appeal, Mr. Dolbin argues that the Veterans Court erred in denying his petition for writ of mandamus and dismissing his motion for class certification. Specifically, he argues that the Veterans Court relied on incorrect statutory provisions and improperly limited the scope of 38 U.S.C. Section 5109B. The Federal Circuit holds that Mr. Dolbin has not shown that the challenged action is too short in duration to be litigated and the lengthy procedural history of his case indicates the contrary. Even if the challenged action were deemed too short in duration to be litigated, Mr. Dolbin has not demonstrated a reasonable expectation that he will again be subject to the same situation. Thus, Mr. Dolbin's petition for writ of mandamus is moot and the capable of repetition but evading review exception does not apply. The Federal Circuit dismisses this portion of Mr. Dolbin's appeal as moot. In addition, the Federal Circuit holds that the relation back doctrine is not applicable. The "relation back" doctrine applies where other similarly situated plaintiffs will continue to be subject to challenged conduct and the claims are so inherently transitory that the trial court will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed representative's individual interest expires. While others may be subject to the same docketing procedures as Mr. Dolbin, the claims in the present case are not inherently transitory for the same reasons that Mr. Dolbin's petition for a writ of mandamus is not too short in duration to be litigated. Another exception applies where a named plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot after the denial of a class certification motion. The Supreme Court has stressed that this is a narrow exception only applying to denials on the merits. Because the Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Dolbin's motion for class certification as moot based on Mr. Dolbin's individual claim, it did not reach the merits of the class certification motion and thus, this exception is not applicable in the present case. Because Mr. Dolbin's individual claim is moot and the exceptions do not apply, the class certification claim is also moot. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit dismisses this portion of Mr. Dolbin's appeal. For these reasons, the Federal Circuit dismisses Mr. Dolbin's appeal as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2023 Disposition is available at https://tinyurl.com/35bh8yyx from Leagle.com. ADAM R. LUCK, GloverLuck, LLP, Dallas, TX, for the Claimant-Appellant. ROBERT R. KIEPURA, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the Respondent-Appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M. McCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, ANDREW J. STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ********* 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 ***