/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230515.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 15, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 97 Headlines 189 CHRYSTIE: Final Certification of Settlement Class Sought 4CIS INC: Weitlauf Seeks to Open Class Certification Discovery ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Ct. Terminates Class Cert Deadlines, Hearings AMAZON.COM INC: Kenny Files Suit Over False Discount Prices AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to August 24 APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Portions of Memorandum AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Lewakowski Securities Class Suit Terminated ARAMARK FOOD: S.D. Florida Dismisses Cadejuste Suit With Prejudice ARGO BLOCKCHAIN: Continues to Defend Murphy Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. AT&T MOBILITY: Class Settlement in Razo Suit Gets Final Nod B & B TRANSPORT: More to Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Gummies' False Ads BCE-MACH III: Class Cert. Bid Must be Filed by March 15, 2024 BIG CITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response BINANCE CAPITAL: Class Cert Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Securities Suit in California Settled BOOZ ALLEN: $5.3-Mil. Class Settlement in Hunter Suit Has Final OK BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Entered; Butler's Claims Tossed BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Entered; Penn's Claims Dismissed BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Entered; Reed's Claims Dismissed BURNTWOOD TAVERN: Bid to Dismiss Claims Against Minute Men OK'd CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Dunsmore Set for June 29 CALIFORNIA: Thomas' Bid to File Class Action Civil Suit Denied CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Santiago Seeks to Certify Class Action CBA SITE SERVICES: Brunson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CEREBRAL INC: Hays Suit Removed to C.D. California CITADEL SALISBURY: Hooker Bid for Class Certification Tossed COCA-COLA BOTTLERS': Anderson's $3.3M Class Deal Wins Prelim. Nod COCA-COLA BOTTLERS: Class Settlement in Anderson Gets Initial Nod COMMUNITY HEALTH: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Not Set CONSOL ENERGY INC: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Virginia COSAN CONSTRUCTION: Rule 23 Class Action Certification Sought DEVA CONCEPTS: Robaina Can't File Exclusion From Adams Class Deal DOWNER EDI: Faces 2nd Suit Over Breach of Contract Disclosures ENOVIX CORP: Court Consolidates Twitchell & Rosin Securities Suits EPIC LANDSCAPE: Conditional Class Certification OK'd in Gomez Suit INTUIT INC: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Tax Filing Fee for $141-M JENNY CRAIG: Faces Class Suit Over WARN Act Violations KROGER CO: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Vitort Class Suit MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Dittman's Class Settlement Wins Final Approval MISSISSIPPI: 5th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Gonzales v. Gillis MY PILLOW: Deutsch Lose Summary Judgment in Class Action NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Unredacted Reply NEW JERSEY: Court Narrows Claims in Planker v. Atkins and NJDOC NEW YORK, NY: Miller Suit Parties to Refile Class Notice in 14 Days NEW YORK, NY: More Time to Finalize Settlement in Payne Sought NOVA HOME: Savinova Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Homecare Workers O.H. BARKHORDAR: Carrasco Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages OLYMPIAN LABS: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Zarzuela OUTDOORSMANS RESALE: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Court Denies Passman's Class Certification Bid PENUMBRA INC: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in California POKE FIDI: Seeks More Time to Oppose Yuwono Class Certification Bid PROCTER & GAMBLE: Meza Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Ct. Won't Modify Class Definition in Volino RENA WARE INTERNATIONAL: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suit REVENTICS LLC: Loeb Files Suit in D. Colorado ROCKWELL COLLINS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 24 SAN JOSE, CA: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of April 7 Order SAVAGE SERVICES: Vargas Sues Over Unpaid Compensations SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought SELECT BRANDS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SERTA SIMMONS BEDDING: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SHAMROCK FOODS: Bell Suit Removed to S.D. California SPARK PRETTY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SPEEDWAY LLC: Petroski Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 26, 2024 SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Stay on Discovery Dispute in Amin Suit Lifted SUGAR COOKIES INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SYNERGY CHC CORP: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California THERALOGIX LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TIVITY HEALTH: Class Cert Status Conference Set for May 22 TORRANCE REFINING: White Suit Removed to C.D. California TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Clark Suit TWITTER INC: Rodriguez's Individual Claims Sent to Arbitration TWITTER INC: Seeks to Strike Class Action Claims & Allegations UNITED HEALTHCARE: Deadline to File Scheduling Statement Extended VELODYNE LIDAR: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Submit Smith Transcript VI-JON LLC: Loughlin Seeks Leave to File Unredacted Memorandum VIDA LONGEVITY: $1.4MM Class Settlement in O'Hern Suit Has Final OK VIDA SHOES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WELLS FARGO: Bid to Compel Discovery Denied in Henzel Class Suit WELLS FARGO: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss Claims in Forbearance Suit WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Consumidores Class Suit WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Financial Privacy Act Class Suit ********* 189 CHRYSTIE: Final Certification of Settlement Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN JESUS MATA ENRIQUEZ and JAVAL ENCARNACION, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. 189 CHRYSTIE STREET PARTNERS, LP d/b/a THE BOX, VARIETY WORLDWIDE LLC, SIMON HAMMERSTEIN and JAVIER VIVAS, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:21-cv-11195-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting final certification of the Settlement Class Members; 2. Granting final approval of the October 25, 2022 Classwide Settlement Agreement and Release; 3. Granting approval of the FLSA Settlement; and 4. Granting such and other, further, or different relief as the Court deems just and proper. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LSyCC7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 1830 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com 4CIS INC: Weitlauf Seeks to Open Class Certification Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER WEITLAUF, v. 4CIS, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01052-LJV (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff files a motion to open discovery on class certification under Rule 26(d). Because four the Defendants are in default, but the Plaintiff needs to conduct discovery in order to bring her motion for class certification and to establish damages against them, good cause exists for discovery under Rule 26(d). The Plaintiff filed a putative class action Complaint alleging RICO and FDCPA claims against several the Defendants. This Court entered an Order dismissing several of these the Defendants, but with leave to amend within 30 days. The Plaintiff chose not to amend her Complaint, and her claims against several the Defendants are deemed dismissed. When the Defendants default in a putative class action, the Plaintiff is "effectively precluded from engaging in a Rule 26(f) conference" and opening discovery. Thus, Rule 26(d) permits the Court to open discovery on the issues of class certification and damages. Here, the Plaintiff will pursue discovery related to the numerosity of the putative class, the identities of the putative class members, and the amounts paid by each class member to the defaulting the Defendants. The Plaintiff intends to do the following: A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3APW1ht at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Hilton, Esq. HILTON PARKER LLC 7544 Slate Ridge Blvd. Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 Telephone: (614) 992-2277 Facsimile: (614) 927-5980 E-mail: jhilton@hiltonparker.com ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Ct. Terminates Class Cert Deadlines, Hearings ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mohrbacher, et al., v. Alameda County Sheriffs Office, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00050 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order terminating class certification deadlines and hearings. In light of the plaintiffs' settlement with Aramark and the Alameda County defendants, the pending motion for class certification, is terminated without prejudice to plaintiffs filing a renewed motion that focuses on the propriety of adjudicating the remaining claims on a classwide basis against the remaining defendant, California Forensic Medical Group. The Plaintiffs may file their renewed motion for class certification by June 1, 2023. The Defendant CFMG may file an opposition by June 15, 2023, and plaintiffs may file a reply by June 22, 2023. The Court will set a hearing on the motion if warranted. All remaining pretrial and trial dates are vacated pending further order. The nature of suit states civil rights -- other civil rights. The Alameda County Sheriff's Office is a law enforcement agency serving Alameda County, California.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Kenny Files Suit Over False Discount Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- Jon Styf of Top Class Actions reports that Amazon.com Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit claiming its posted Amazon Prime discounts are not discounts from a real price. Instead, plaintiffs contend, Amazon.com posts a false price that was not consistently used and then discounts from that price instead. The proposed class includes any Amazon customer who purchased a discounted product with a price of $500 or more where the original price posted was not used for at least six months of the previous year. Lead plaintiff Ben Kinney claims he purchased an LG television on Amazon that was priced at $1,496.99, marked down from $2,499.99, and tagged as "40% off." After the purchase, the price on the television then changed to $2,199 and stated "$700 off," according to the class action. The television, however, was normally sold on Amazon for $1,500 and the price rose to $2,000 for approximately a month, the plaintiff later found out, he claims. Amazon pricing allegedly violates FTC guidelines The pricing on Amazon violates Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines for advertising a comparison to former prices, the plaintiff alleges. The FTC states a price comparison must be to a bonafide former price and not an inflated price, where sales weren't made, that was only created to then claim the item was later on a discount. The plaintiff claims Amazon Prime discounts regularly violate the law and consumer trust and is asking for damages to be paid by Amazon.com Inc. along with the costs of the case including court and attorney's fees, as well as any further relief that the court sees fit. The company is also facing a class action lawsuit in federal court in Oklahoma for allegedly sending unsolicited text messages. Have you paid for a product marked as discounted but later found out you paid the normal price? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC. The Prime discount class action lawsuit is Kinney, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02523, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. [GN] AMERICAN FAMILY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to August 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOLLY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00214-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order amending the Class Certification deadline: Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Deadline for Plaintiffs' motion May 26, 2023 Aug. 24, 2023 For Class Certification The Parties have been actively engaged in discovery. This includes the exchange of written discovery, document production, and third-party discovery. The Plaintiffs request that this Court extend the class certification deadline by 90 days to provide the Parties with additional time to complete discovery. American Family offers auto, home, life, umbrella, business, health, and farm and ranch insurance products and services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hy8yKb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: adam@edelsberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher M. Assise, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7141 E-mail: cassise@sidley.com APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Portions of Memorandum --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs submit an interim administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed in portions of the plaintiffs' reply memorandum in further support of renewed motion for class certification and supporting expert reply reports pursuant to the September 26, 2022 stipulation and order modifying sealing procedures and civil local rules 7-11(a) and 79-5(f). The Plaintiffs include Robert Pepper, Stephen H. Schwartz, Edward W. Hayter, and Edward Lawrence. The Plaintiffs move to seal portions of their memorandum of points and authorities in further support of their renewed motion for class certification and to seal the supporting expert reply reports of Daniel L. McFadden, Ph.D. and Rosa Abrantes-Metz, Ph.D. filed therewith. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nuzzr4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com byrd@whafh.com rifkin@whafh.com guiney@whafh.com burt@whafh.com - and - David C. Frederick, Esq. Aaron M. Panner, Esq. Kyle M. Wood, Esq. KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 Facsimile: (202) 326-7999 E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com apanner@kellogghansen.com kwood@kellogghansen.com - and - Michael Liskow, Esq. CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036-5803 Telephone: (212) 899-1761 Facsimile: (332) 206-2073 E-mail: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Lewakowski Securities Class Suit Terminated ------------------------------------------------------------------- Aquestive Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey so-ordered the Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of Lewakowski securities class suit parties and terminated the case on April 7, 2023. On April 7, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal stating that plaintiffs determined not to file an amended complaint and agreed to dismiss the action as to them with prejudice. On April 10, 2023, the Court so-ordered the stipulation and terminated the lawsuit. On March 1, 2021, a securities class action lawsuit, Deanna Lewakowski v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the Company and certain of its officers engaged in violations of the federal securities laws relating to public statements made by the Company regarding the FDA approval of Libervant. Following the court's appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on June 25, 2021. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 16, 2021, which became fully briefed as of November 1, 2021. On March 14, 2023, the Court entered an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and permitting plaintiffs leave to file a final, Second Amended Complaint by April 14, 2023. On April 7, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal stating that plaintiffs determined not to file an amended complaint and agreed to dismiss the action as to them with prejudice. On April 10, 2023, the Court so-ordered the stipulation and terminated the lawsuit. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey. ARAMARK FOOD: S.D. Florida Dismisses Cadejuste Suit With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GIEUVOIS CADEJUSTE, Plaintiff v. ARAMARK FOOD DISTRIBUTION, Defendant, Case No. 23-CV-14115-RAR (S.D. Fla.), Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismisses the Plaintiff's Class Action Civil Suite Complaint with prejudice. The matter comes before the Court on Cadejuste's Class Action Civil Suite Complaint which the Court construes as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff's Complaint is a rambling and incoherent mess laden with references to the Black Hebrew Israelites, long lists of fictional website URLs, nutritional facts about random snack items, several smiling suns with sunglasses (which the Plaintiff believes to be a depiction of the Ancient Egyptian creator god Ra), and a fantastical drawing of a person being abducted by a UFO under the watchful eyes of a demon and that same smiling sun. The Plaintiff, unsurprisingly, has a long history of filing other frivolous civil suits in federal court and has not paid the filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. Under this set of circumstances, Judge Ruiz could dismiss the Complaint without prejudice under the "three-strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g), but, given the frivolousness of the Complaint and the Plaintiff's long history of meritless lawsuits, he will instead dismiss the Complaint with prejudice and advise the Plaintiff that sanctions will be imposed against him if he continues to inundate the Court with his nonsensical and absurd pleadings. Based on the foregoing, Judge Ruiz dismisses the Complaint with prejudice as frivolous and malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. He denies all pending motions as moot and terminates all deadlines, if any. The case is closed. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/410s4 from Leagle.com. ARGO BLOCKCHAIN: Continues to Defend Murphy Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Argo Blockchain PLC disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the Murphy class suit in the Eastern District of New York. The case, Murphy vs Argo Blockchain plc et al, was filed in the Eastern District of New York on January 26, 2023. The Company refutes all of the allegations and believes that this class action lawsuit is without merit. Argo Blockchain PLC, together with its subsidiaries, purports to engage in the cryptocurrency mining business worldwide, including the mining of Bitcoin or Bitcoin equivalents.[BN] AT&T MOBILITY: Class Settlement in Razo Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his own behalf of and all others similarly situated, v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, et al.Case No. 1:20-cv-00172-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the Settlement is granted. 2. Certification of the Settlement Class is granted, with the class defined as follows: "All persons who either or both: (1) worked for AT&T Mobility Services LLC in the State of California, while classified as non-exempt, at any time from November 2, 2021, to September 21, 2022t; and/or (2) filed a timely Request for Exclusion from the class action settlement in the matter of Samuel Wallack, et. al. v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, Case No. CIVSB2117915, pending in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of California County of San Bernardino." 3. Pursuant to their requests, Kellen Shaw, Natasha Alaya, Isabel Ramos, Joshua Katzen, Sumanth Bharadwaj, and Cleveland Harris are excluded from the Settlement Class. 4. The PAGA award from the Gross Settlement Amount, including payment of $7,500.00 to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency, is approved. 5. The request for a Class Representative service payment for Razo is granted in part, in the modified amount of $5,000.00. 6. Class Counsel’s motion for fees in the amount of 33 1/3% of the gross settlement fund -- in the total amount of $191,666.67 – is granted. 7. Class Counsel's request for costs in the amount of $4,747.10 is granted. 8. Settlement Administration costs in the amount of $27,047.00, to be paid from the Gross Settlement, are approved. 9. The action is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees except as otherwise provided by the Settlement and ordered by the Court. 10. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. Razo was employed as a sales representative at the AT&T Mobility Store located in Madera, California. Razo asserts he worked for AT&T "for approximately eleven years" until his termination in June 2018. He alleges AT&T "routinely failed to properly calculate the overtime and double time rate of pay." Razo asserts AT&T "failed to include its Employees' total compensation including bonuses and commissions when calculating the regular rate for the purposes of determining overtime wages owed and thus routinely underpaid employees for overtime wages owed." Razo contends this underpayment was "evidenced in [his] paycheck and accompanying wage statement issued June 13, 2018." He alleges the wage statements also "failed to properly list all hours worked which again resulted in an underpayment of wages including overtime and double time wages to employees. " Razo asserted the claims were brought on behalf of himself and classes including: 1. The Plaintiff Class: All persons who have been, or currently are, employed by the Defendant and who held, or hold, job positions which the Defendant have classified as "non-exempt" personnel in the State of California. (The Class Period is the period from August 27, 2015, through and including the date judgment is rendered in this matter). 2. "The Terminated Sub Class": All members of the Plaintiff Class whose employment ended during the Class Period (The Class Period is the period from August 27, 2015, through and including the date judgment is rendered in this matter). AT&T is an American telecommunications company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NysuAr at no extra charge.[CC] B & B TRANSPORT: More to Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE WILLIAM BALLINGER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. B & B TRANSPORT, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-01607-ADA-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Parties file joint stipulation to continue class certification and related deadlines by 90 days to resolve pending discovery disputes as follows: Class Certification Current Date New Date Class Certification Discovery Nov. 6, 2023 Feb. 5, 2024 Deadline Deadline to File Class Dec. 1, 2023 Feb. 29,2024 Certification Motion Deadline to File Opposition Jan. 30, 2024 Apr. 29, 2024 for Class Certification Deadline to File Reply for Feb, 29, 2024 May 29 2024 Class Certification Deadline to File Settlement Feb. 29, 2024 May 29,2024 Notice Hearing Date on Motion for Apr. 4, 2024 Jul. 3, 2024 Class Certification B&B Transport is a transportation company based out of Fresno, CA. A copy of the Parties' dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LT0mGP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. Jessica Bulaon, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com liane@kingsleykingsley.com jessi@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN LAW FIRM, INC. 400 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 700 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818)875-2008 Facsimile: (818)722-3974 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Cho, Esq. Nalee Xiong, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 W 5th St. Ste 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 Facsimile: (213) 250-7900 E-mail: Nalee.xiong@lewisbrisbois.com BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Gummies' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- Brigette Honaker of Top Class Actions reports that according to a false advertising class action lawsuit, Bayer misrepresented its One A Day Fruit Bites multivitamin gummies as "natural" despite containing synthetic ingredients. Consumers say they paid a higher price for the One A Day gummies based on these advertisements, causing a financial injury when they didn't get what they paid for. Do you qualify? Bayer sells multiple versions of its One A Day Fruit Bites, including: One A Day Men's Fruit Bites Multivitamin One A Day Women's Fruit Bites Multivitamin Flintstone's Kids Fruit Bites Multivitamin One A Day Women's 50+ Fruit Bites Multivitamin One A Day Men's 50+ Fruit Bites Multivitamin If you purchased One A Day Fruit Bites multivitamin gummies, you may qualify to participate in this One A Day false advertising class action lawsuit investigation. Fill out the form on this page for more information. One A Day Fruit Bites: overview One A Day Fruit Bites are "natural" fruit multivitamin gummies. These advertisements may entice consumers who want to get their daily nutrients without consuming synthetic chemicals at the same time. Unfortunately, according to a class action lawsuit, One A Day Fruit Bites may not be as "natural" as promised. One A Day gummies class action lawsuit According to a false advertising class action lawsuit filed in July 2022, One A Day Fruit Bites are not "natural." In fact, the One A Day gummies allegedly contain synthetic ingredients including the following: One A Day Fruit Bites are "natural" fruit multivitamin gummies. These advertisements may entice consumers who want to get their daily nutrients without consuming synthetic chemicals at the same time. Unfortunately, according to a class action lawsuit, One A Day Fruit Bites may not be as "natural" as promised. One A Day gummies class action lawsuit According to a false advertising class action lawsuit filed in July 2022, One A Day Fruit Bites are not "natural." In fact, the One A Day gummies allegedly contain synthetic ingredients including the following: Cholecalciferol: a synthetic substance manufactured from the UV irradiation of cholesterol byproducts. Niacinamide: a synthetic vitamin manufactured through various chemical processes. Pyridoxine hydrochloride: a synthetic substance manufactured through chemical synthesis. D-biotin: a synthetic form of biotin manufactured through chemical processes. Potassium iodide: a synthetic chemical made by reacting hydriodic acid with potassium bicarbonate. The plaintiff in the class action lawsuit says he purchased the One A Day gummies believing that they were free of synthetic ingredients including those listed above. He claims he paid a higher price for the vitamins thinking they were natural as promised. The natural products industry grows from year to year, proving that consumers are more interested in finding natural alternatives to traditionally synthetic products such as vitamins. According to Persistence Market Research, the natural and organic personal care products industry is expected to increase by 9.7% per year and be valued at $66.1 billion by the end of 2033. According to the One A Day class action lawsuit, Bayer sought to take advantage of these trends with false advertising. Since the One A Day Fruit Bites are not "natural" as promised, the plaintiff and other consumers allegedly suffered from financial damages because they were misled into paying higher prices. "Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representation that the products were natural, Plaintiff would not have been willing to pay the same amount for the products, and, consequently, would not have been willing to purchase the products," the One A Day gummies class action lawsuit contends. The false advertising class action lawsuit seeks compensation for the financial damages he and other consumers experienced as a result of the alleged One A Day false advertising. Join a One A Day gummies class action lawsuit investigation Multiple One A Day gummies may have been advertised with misleading "natural" promises, including: One A Day Men's Fruit Bites Multivitamin One A Day Women's Fruit Bites Multivitamin Flintstone's Kids Fruit Bites Multivitamin One A Day Women's 50+ Fruit Bites Multivitamin One A Day Men's 50+ Fruit Bites Multivitamin If you purchased One A Day Fruit Bites multivitamin gummies, you may qualify to participate in this One A Day false advertising class action lawsuit investigation. Fill out the form on this page for a FREE case evaluation. [GN] BCE-MACH III: Class Cert. Bid Must be Filed by March 15, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAGACITY, INC., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-MACH III LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00039-JFH-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gerald L. Jackson entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Joinder of additional parties or Aug. 31, 2023 amendments to pleadings 2. Documents previously produced by Feb. 16, 2024 parties shall be deemed authenticated except as to those objected to 3. Class Certification Motion filed Mar. 15, 2024 with all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures 4. Class Certification Response filed with May 15, 2024 all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures 5. Class Certification Reply filed with June 17, 2024 any rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosures, if any 6. Class Certification Discovery Cutoff June 17, 2024 7. Evidentiary hearing on The Plaintiff's July 9, 2024 Motion for Class Certification A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NDmdDw at no extra charge.[CC] BIG CITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pineda v. Big City Realty Management, LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05428-BMC (EDNY), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time file a response to plaintiff's motion for class certification and to amend the complaint filed on April 14, 2023. Currently, the Defendants' last day to respond to the Plaintiff's motion is April 28, 2023, and defendants seek an extension to May 10, 2023. The Defendants seek the extension in order to properly address the arguments made in the motion which required additional internal investigation. Moreover, the prior extensions from the initial motion schedule caused unforeseen scheduling issues with counsel and the individually named plaintiffs. There has been no previous request for an extension in this matter and plaintiff's counsel has consented to the extension. Accordingly, the defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their request to extend the defendants' time to respond to plaintiff's motion to May 10, 2023. Big City offers brokerage services like buying, selling, property management, leasing, and real estate consultation. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pa4E3z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Peter Metis, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER METIS, LLC 46 Trinity Place, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 808-7780 Facsimile: (646) 908-2468 E-mail: pmetis@metislawoffice.com BINANCE CAPITAL: Class Cert Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAMIL KUKLINSKI, v. BINANCE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO., LTD, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01425-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Stephen P. Mcglynn entered an order adopting amended joint report and proposed scheduling and discovery order as follows: -- Depositions upon oral examination, interrogatories, requests for documents, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed unless on order of the Court. -- Disclosures or discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) are to be filed with the Court only to the extent required by the final pretrial order, other Court order, or if a dispute arises over the disclosure or discovery and the matter has been set for briefing. -- The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if such modification would impact (1) the date of any court appearance, (2) the deadline for completing the mandatory mediation session or the mandatory mediation process (if applicable), (3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or (4) the deadline for filing dispositive motions. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lu5Lmw at no extra charge.[CC] BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Securities Suit in California Settled -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-06719 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order finding as moot motion to certify class in light of settlement. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. BioMarin is an American biotechnology company headquartered in San Rafael, California.[CC] A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44vl3jl at no extra charge.[CC] BOOZ ALLEN: $5.3-Mil. Class Settlement in Hunter Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SARAH J. HUNTER and DAVID N. YOUTZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00411 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants: (i) the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs; and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Plaintiffs Hunter and Youtz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that Defendants Booz Allen, Mission Essential Personnel, LLC ("ME"), CACI International, Inc., and CACI Technologies LLC ("CACI"), unlawfully entered into agreements not to hire, recruit, or solicit one another's employees at Joint Intelligence Operations Center Europe ("JIOCEUR") Analytic Center ("JAC") in Molesworth, England, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1-7. After three years of litigation, the Plaintiffs reached Settlement Agreements with the Defendants; in December 2022, the Court preliminarily certified the Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23 and approved the Settlement Agreements. The Settlement Agreements provide a total of $5,275,000, including $1,325,000 for the Settlement Class and $3.95 million in attorneys' fees and costs. Now before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Amended Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Both motions are unopposed by the Defendants, and no class member has objected. Judge Marbley held a Fairness Hearing on April 12, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. The Defendants are defense contractors, who provide intelligence services to the United States government pursuant to contracts with the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency ("DIA"). Some of that work takes place at JAC: a former Royal Air Force base in Molesworth, United Kingdom, that now serves as the military intelligence analysis center for the U.S. European Command. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants at JAC, allege that the Defendants entered into agreements not to hire one another's employees (also referred to as "no-poach agreements"), which served to eliminate competition and depress compensation. The Defendants, on the other hand, suggest that their hiring activities were justified as part of a lawful team-building approach; they continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing. Hunter initiated the action on Feb. 7, 2019. Youtz was added on May 3, 2019. Over the next three years, the parties litigated the action vigorously. Finally, between April 29, 2021, and April 20, 2022, the parties participated in three mediation sessions, first between the Plaintiffs and CACI and two further sessions between the Plaintiffs and Booz Allen and ME, through which the parties reached settlement agreements. The Plaintiffs executed a settlement agreement with CACI on June 8, 2021 and a separate agreement with Booz Allen and ME on Sept. 2, 2022. The Settlement Agreements resolve all claims by the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class against the Defendants, with the Settlement Class defined as: All natural persons employed by Defendants at JAC Molesworth during the Class Period from Jan. 1, 2015 through June 30, 2022. The total value of the Settlement Agreements stands at $5,275,000, with $1,325,000 allocated for the Settlement Class and $3.95 million in fees and costs for the Class Counsel. The Booz Allen/ME Settlement Agreement creates an all-cash Settlement Fund of $1,325,000 (plus interest, if any), to be distributed to the Settlement Class. The funds will be paid into an escrow account at Citibank, N.A., within 30 business days of the agreement becoming effective. The amount each class member will receive from the fund will be calculated by dividing her estimated total salary during the Class Period by the combined estimated total salaries paid to all Class Members during the Class Period, and multiplying that fraction by the total fund amount. Any remaining funds will be given to the Settlement Class or distributed cy pres. The Settlement Agreements also contemplate compensation for the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs and incentive awards for the class representatives, Hunter and Youtz, in addition to the Settlement Fund. In total, the Plaintiffs seek $3,95 million ($3.75 million from Booz Allen and ME and $200,000 from CACI) in fees and costs. The Plaintiffs explain that the Class Counsel have incurred approximately $2,129,065 in litigation expenses, plus $82,500 for settlement administration; the Class Counsel also seek $20,000 for incentive awards and $1,718,435 in attorneys' fees. On Dec. 19, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. On Feb. 6, 2023, the Settlement Administrator mailed class notices to 609 members of the Settlement Class for whom Defendants had provided mailing addresses over the preceding months. In total, the Settlement Class consists of 647 employees who were employees of the Defendants at JAC Molesworth from Jan. 1, 2015, to June 30, 2022. The Settlement Administrator has been unable to effect service on six class members. Six class members have opted-out of the Booz Allen-ME Settlement Agreement (one untimely), three of whom also opted-out of the CACI Settlement. The Class Counsel has responded to inquiries from 33 members of the Class. Judge Marbley finds that the settlement of the action, as embodied in the terms of the Settlement Agreements between the parties, is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the factual, legal, practical and procedural considerations raised by this suit. He grants the Plaintiffs' request for final approval of the Settlement Agreements and certifies the Settlement Class for settlement purposes. He further the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, Judge Marbley certifies the Rule 23 Class for settlement purposes, consisting of the following: All natural persons employed by Defendants at JAC Molesworth during the Class Period from Jan. 1, 2015, through June 30, 2022. He approves the Named Plaintiffs, Sarah J. Hunter and David N. Youtz, as the Class Representatives; and appoints as the Class Counsel the Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP and Gibbs Law Group LLP. Without affecting the finality of his judgment, Judge Marbley reserves jurisdiction over the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this judgment and the Agreements and all matters ancillary to the same. The Order and the Agreements are not evidence of, or an admission or concession on the part of, the Released Parties with respect to any claim of any fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages whatsoever. To be paid pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreements, Judge Marbley awards: i. attorneys' fees and reimbursements of their costs and expenses in the total amount of $3,925,000 ($1,718,435 in fees and $2,211,565 in litigation and settlement administration costs); and ii. to Class Representatives Sarah J. Hunter and David N. Youtz $10,000 each for service and assistance to the Class. The Settlement Fund will consist of $1,325,000 from Booz Allen Hamilton and Mission Essential Personnel, to be distributed by the Claims Administrator in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreements and the Final Order. The action, including all individual and class claims against Defendants Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., Mission Essential Personnel, LLC, CACI International, Inc., and CACI Technologies LLC, resolved, is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice against the Class Representative and all other Settlement Class Members, except any Opt-Outs, without fees or costs to any party or non-party except as otherwise provided in the Final Approval Order. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://rb.gy/rgetq from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Entered; Butler's Claims Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAKESHA BUTLER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (5), Civil Action No. 17-4145 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants: a. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and b. the BP parties' motion for summary judgment. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. She alleges that she was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from her work as an onshore cleanup worker. The Plaintiff represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: headaches, stomach cramps, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, light sensitivity, chronic eye irritation, chemically induced chronic conjunctivitis, wheezing, shortness of breath, reactive airway disease, night sweats, insomnia, depression, anxiety, dermatitis, acne, blistering, itching, lesions, welts, arthritis, myalgia, and dizziness. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. Her case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After her case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants because of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in her complaint, she offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his March 14, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. They also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry her burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions, contending that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation, and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. Judge Vance finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. Given Dr. Cook's failure to determine the relevant harmful level of exposure to chemicals to which the Plaintiff was exposed for her specific conditions, he lacks sufficient facts to provide a reliable opinion on general causation. Judge Vance also finds that Dr. Cook's report is unhelpful to the factfinder for many of the same reasons. Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful because of his inability to link any specific chemical that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, at the level at which she was exposed, to the health conditions that she purportedly experiences. He makes no attempt to identify which chemicals within crude oil the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to. In sum, Judge Vance holds that the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet her burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in the case, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. She asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived plaintiff of data which would quantitatively establish her exposure. However, Judge Vance finds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies. First, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Finally, given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of her claims against the Defendants, her claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vance grants the BP parties' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Cook; denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation; grants the BP parties' motion for summary judgment; and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://rb.gy/c6bdt from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Entered; Penn's Claims Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TAVARISH PENN v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Civil Action No. 17-4080 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants: a. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and b. the BP parties' motion for summary judgment. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an onshore and offshore cleanup worker. The Plaintiff represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: rashes, itching, scaling, eye irritation, shortness of breath, chronic bronchitis, throat pain, runny nose, congestion, sinusitis, chronic rhinitis, nose bleeds, decreased sense of smell, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, brain fog, and hypertension. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants because of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his March 14, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. They also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions, contending that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation, and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. Judge Vance finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. Given Dr. Cook's failure to determine the relevant harmful level of exposure to chemicals to which the Plaintiff was exposed for his specific conditions, he lacks sufficient facts to provide a reliable opinion on general causation. Judge Vance also finds that Dr. Cook's report is unhelpful to the factfinder for many of the same reasons. He says Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful because of his inability to link any specific chemical that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, at the level at which he was exposed, to the health conditions that he purportedly experiences. Given that Dr. Cook's report does not identify which specific chemicals the Plaintiff was exposed to, his report is unhelpful to the factfinder. In sum, Judge Vance concludes that the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the minimal facts necessary to establish general causation in the case, she grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. He asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived him of data which would quantitatively establish his exposure. Judge Vance finds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies. First, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Dr. Cook's failure to link any specific chemicals to the conditions allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff prevents the admission of Cook's opinion. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Finally, given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vance grants the BP parties' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Cook; denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation; grants the BP parties' motion for summary judgment; and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://rb.gy/32w5c from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Entered; Reed's Claims Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTONIO J. REED v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (2), Civil Action No. 17-4174 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants: a. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and b. the BP parties' motion for summary judgment. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an onshore cleanup worker. The Plaintiff represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: headache, nausea, weight loss, heartburn, abdominal pain, diarrhea, vomiting, hypertension, chronic rhinitis, earache, fatigue, chills, blurred vision, eye burning, depression, chest pain, shortness of breath, acne, and welts. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After his case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants because of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his March 14, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. They also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions, contending that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation, and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. Judge Vance finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. Given Dr. Cook's failure to determine the relevant harmful level of exposure to chemicals to which the Plaintiff was exposed for his specific conditions, he lacks sufficient facts to provide a reliable opinion on general causation. Judge Vance also finds that Dr. Cook's report is unhelpful to the factfinder for many of the same reasons. She says Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful because of his inability to link any specific chemical that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, at the level at which he was exposed, to the health conditions that he purportedly experiences. Given that Dr. Cook's report does not identify which specific chemicals the Plaintiff was exposed to, his report is unhelpful to the factfinder. In sum, Judge Vance concludes that the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the minimal facts necessary to establish general causation in the case, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. He asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived him of data which would quantitatively establish his exposure. Judge Vance holds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies. First, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Dr. Cook's failure to link any specific chemicals to the conditions allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff prevents the admission of Cook's opinion. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Finally, given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vance grants the BP parties' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Cook; denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation; grants the BP parties' motion for summary judgment; and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://rb.gy/d1h2w from Leagle.com. BURNTWOOD TAVERN: Bid to Dismiss Claims Against Minute Men OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON GOEBLE, v. BURNTWOOD TAVERN HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:22-cv-01733-JG (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James S. Gwin entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss claims against the Defendant Minute Men Select and denying dismissal of claims against Burntwood Defendants. The Court denies the Plaintiff Goeble's motion to conditionally certify a collective action, expedite opt-in discovery, and notify potential opt-in plaintiffs. Finally, the Court denies as moot the Plaintiff Goeble's motion to reschedule mediation pending resolution of the motion to dismiss and conditional-certification motions. Goeble proposes the following Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action for conditional certification: "All current and former tipped employees who worked for Burntwood at one or more of its restaurant locations in the United States at least one week during the three-year period prior to the filing of this action to the present." The Plaintiff Goeble worked from August 2020 through January 2021 as a server for Burntwood Tavern Chagrin Falls. Burntwood Tavern is a regional bar and restaurant group with 14 locations in Ohio and Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M35yZ3 at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Bid Hearing in Dunsmore Set for June 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dunsmore v. State of California, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00406 (S.D. Cal., Filed March 2, 2020), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order setting briefing schedule regarding motion for leave to allow the non-electronic filing of exhibits, motion for preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, motion to file documents under seal: -- Responses due by: May 10, 2023 -- Replies due by: May 17, 2023 -- Motion Hearing set for: June 29, 2023 -- Sur-replies will not be accepted. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights. California, a western U.S. state, stretches from the Mexican border along the Pacific for nearly 900 miles.[CC] CALIFORNIA: Thomas' Bid to File Class Action Civil Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICKY L. THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. SHIRLEY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00470-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies Thomas' motion to file a class action civil suit without prejudice. Thomas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The original action was filed together with 17 other inmates and was severed into individual proceedings on April 5, 2023. The Plaintiff was ordered to proceed as the sole Plaintiff in this case and to file a signed complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. On April 25, 2023, Thomas filed a signed first amended complaint, together with a motion to file a class action. In his motion, he argues that the initial case was intended to be filed as a class action civil complaint, as is his FAC. He argues that the -- now former -- Plaintiffs in this action have demonstrated fulfillment of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and requests that the cases not be severed, and the Court allow the filing of a class action. He further contends that if the Court severs the plaintiffs, they will be prejudiced because they cannot proceed by way of a class action, they will be prejudiced by the requirement that they exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA and will then be a victim of another federal civil rights violation. Judge McAuliffe denies the Plaintiff's request. She says the Plaintiff is not an attorney and is proceeding without counsel. It is well-established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. A non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his own claims to court, but may not represent others. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Plaintiff to proceed as class counsel, and Judge McAuliffe denies the request without prejudice. Finally, Judge McAuliffe notes that it appears that the motion is signed by an individual other than the Plaintiff. While the Court has addressed the merits of the motion as a one-time exception, she advises the Plaintiff that because he is proceeding pro se (without an attorney), both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Local Rules require that all filed pleadings, motions, and papers be signed by the party personally if the party is unrepresented. Therefore, all future filings submitted to the Court must include the Plaintiff's own signature, as well as the date the filing was submitted to prison authorities for mailing. Future filings that do not include the Plaintiff's own signature may be rejected as improperly filed. Accordingly, Judge McAuliffe denies the Plaintiff's motion to file a class action civil suit without prejudice. She says the Plaintiff's FAC will be screened in due course. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/f1h7s from Leagle.com. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Santiago Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA I. SANTIAGO, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC; CAVALRY SPV I, LLC; JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-08332-EP-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Cavalry Portfolio is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44sGfXh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 - and - Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC 1520 U.S. Highway 130 – Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 Facsimile: (732) 545-1030 CBA SITE SERVICES: Brunson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBA Site Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Raymond G. Brunson, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CBA Site Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 23CV000817 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 1, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." CBA Site Services, Inc. provides professional, technical & civil services fundamental to network deployment, infrastructure maintenance, etc.[BN] CEREBRAL INC: Hays Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Hays and David Liu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CEREBRAL, INC., Case No. 23CV029681 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 1, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02128-SK. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts causes of action for Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), Violation of CIPA, Violation of California Civil Code, and Violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (the "CMIA") against Defendant in connection with its alleged unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiffs' and the putative class members' personal health information ("PHI") and/or personal identifying information ("PII") to third parties, which was discovered on January 3, 2023 (the "Data Incident").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Teresa C. Chow, Esq. Alexis Cruz, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com acruz@bakerlaw.com CITADEL SALISBURY: Hooker Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hooker, et al., v. The Citadel Salisbury LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00384 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joe L. Webster entered an order denying motion for class certification. -- The time already allotted for discovery prior to the entry of order granting limited stay. The proposed dates in the amended joint Rule 26(f) Report should take into consideration. The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS': Anderson's $3.3M Class Deal Wins Prelim. Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KIMARIO ANDERSON and WILLIAM GRIMMETT, individually and on behalf of the Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS' ASSOCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-2054-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas grants the parties' motion for preliminary approval of their class action settlement, which would resolve all claims in the case, and for related relief. The action was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association ("CCBA"), an association of independent companies that bottle and distribute Coca-Cola products, offers various employee benefit programs to its members, including a 401(k) retirement plan. The Plaintiffs were employed by a member of CCBA and were participants in the Plan. The Plan was administered on behalf of CCBA by defendant The Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association 401(k) Savings Plan Benefit Committee and the Individual Defendants were members of the Committee at relevant times. In the action, the Plaintiffs have asserted claims under Section 404(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a) -- on their own behalf, on behalf of the Plan, and on behalf of a putative class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan since Feb. 1, 2015 -- by which they allege breaches of fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty. On March 30, 2022, the Court dismissed claims relating to one fund offered by the Plan, certain claims relating to recordkeeping fees, and claims against the Individual Defendants for co-fiduciary liability. The parties recently engaged in mediation and reached an agreement to settle the claims in the case, including the class claims. Under that settlement, the Defendants would pay $3.3 million into a settlement fund, and the net amount (after deductions for administrative expenses, attorney fee and expense awards, and service awards) would be distributed to the class members pro rata, based on their level of investment in the Plan over the class period (Feb. 1, 2015, through the date of the Order). Current participants in the Plan would have their accounts credited with their shares, without the need for the submission of claims; and former participants could submit a claim form electing to have their shares rolled into other accounts or plan or to receive payment by check. The agreement provides for a future motion by the Plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorney fees up to one-third of the gross settlement amount, and for a future motion for service awards in maximum amounts of $20,000 for one Plaintiff and $10,000 for the other. The parties now seek preliminary approval of that settlement and related relief. By the present motion, they seek only preliminary approval of their settlement, in anticipation of a motion for final approval after the settlement class has been certified, the class notice has been disseminated, and the class members have been given an opportunity to object. Judge Lungstrum concludes that the standards for preliminary approval of the settlement have been met in the case. He concludes that the settlement falls within the range of settlements that could be approved. He therefore grants preliminary approval of the parties' settlement, including the proposed plan of allocation and the proposed distribution plan. He also approves the appointment of Analytics Consulting, LLC as the settlement administrator, as requested by the parties. By the present motion, the Plaintiffs' counsel does not seek an award of fees and expenses; rather, it intends to file in the future, prior to the deadline for class members to object, a motion for attorney fees and for service awards for the Plaintiff class representatives. In conjunction with the motion for final settlement approval, Judge Lungstrum will consider the propriety of any such awards. At this stage, he considers the maximum awards allowed by the settlement agreement only for the purpose of determining whether to grant preliminary approval to the settlement and he has concluded that the settlement falls within the range of acceptable settlements even if the maximum awards were granted. Next, Judge Lungstrum concludes that certification of a settlement class would be appropriate. Therefore, he conditionally certifies the proposed settlement class for the purposes requested, including so that notice to the class may be authorized. He also appoints the Plaintiffs' counsel as the class counsel as requested and appoints the Individual Plaintiffs as the class representatives. As to the Class Notice, the parties propose to provide notice to the class by direct mail. Judge Lungstrum concludes that such notice is reasonable and practicable. He orders the parties to include on the settlement website the authorized class notice and any materials submitted to the Court for its consideration, including specifically any motion for fees and service awards and the report obtained by defendants from an independent fiduciary concerning the settlement. Finally, the Plan recordkeeper has indicated that it is feasible to give notice on the online account portals for active participants who have signed up for such access. Such additional notice must be given in that manner. In addition, with respect to the content of the class notice to be mailed to the class members, Judge Lungstrum approves the revised notice forms submitted by the parties after the Court's recent telephone conference. Finally, Judge Lungstrum sets the following schedule and deadlines, which have been decided in consultation with the parties, and which will be included in the class notice: a. Any motion for an award of attorney fees and expenses or for service awards for class representatives will be filed by July 17, 2023. b. Any objections to the settlement agreement or to any request for awards will be filed by Aug. 16, 2023. Any responses to objections to the settlement and any motion for final settlement approval will be filed by Sept. 1, 2023. Judge Lungstrum sets the final settlement approval hearing for Sept. 15, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. (CST), in Courtroom 440 in the federal courthouse in Kansas City, Kansas. He will forthwith issue an additional order, which has been proposed by the parties and modified by the Court, and which contains additional details concerning the preliminary approval of the settlement. The parties' motion for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement and for other relief is granted as more fully set forth. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://rb.gy/jm3st from Leagle.com. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS: Class Settlement in Anderson Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMARIO ANDERSON and WILLIAM GRIMMETT, individually and on behalf of the Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and all others similarly situated, v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS' ASSOCATION, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02054-JWL (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John W. Lungstrum entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement; conditionally certifying a settlement class; appointing class counsel, class representatives, and a settlement administrator; authorizing notice to the class; and setting a schedule for further proceedings, including a final settlement approval hearing. This action is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) The Defendant Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association (CCBA), an association of independent companies that bottle and distribute Coca-Cola products, offers various employee benefit programs to its members, including a 401(k) retirement plan. The Plaintiffs were employed by a member of CCBA and were participants in the Plan. The Plan was administered on behalf of CCBA by defendant The Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association 401(k) Savings Plan Benefit Committee, and the individual defendants were members of the Committee at relevant times. In this action, plaintiffs have asserted claims under Section 404(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. section 1104(a) -- on their own behalf, on behalf of the Plan, and on behalf of a putative class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan since February 1, 2015 -- by which they allege breaches of fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty. On March 30, 2022, the Court dismissed claims relating to one fund offered by the Plan, certain claims relating to recordkeeping fees, and claims against the individual defendants for co-fiduciary liability. The parties recently engaged in mediation and reached an agreement to settle the claims in this case, including the class claims. Under that settlement, defendants would pay $3,300,000 into a settlement fund, and the net amount (after deductions for administrative expenses, attorney fee and expense awards, and service awards) would be distributed to class members pro rata, based on their level of investment in the Plan over the class period (February 1, 2015, through the date of this order). Current participants in the Plan would have their accounts credited with their shares, without the need for the submission of claims; and former participants could submit a claim form electing to have their shares rolled into other accounts or plan or to receive payment by check. The agreement provides for a future motion by plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorney fees up to one-third of the gross settlement amount, and for a future motion for service awards in maximum amounts of $20,000 for one plaintiff and $10,000 for the other. The parties now seek preliminary approval of that settlement and related relief. The Court sets the following schedule and deadlines, which have been decided in consultation with the parties, and which shall be included in the class notice: -- Any motion for an award of attorney fees and expenses or for service awards for class representatives shall be filed on or before July 17, 2023. -- Any objections to the settlement agreement or to any request for awards shall be filed on or before August 16, 2023. -- Any responses to objections to the settlement and any motion for final settlement approval shall be filed on or before September 1, 2023. -- The Court hereby sets the final settlement approval hearing for September 15, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. CST, in Courtroom 440 in the federal courthouse in Kansas City, Kansas. Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association operates as a membership program for domestic bottlers of Coca Cola products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nnJDCi at no extra charge.[CC] COMMUNITY HEALTH: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Not Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has not set a hearing for the Padilla securities class suit settlement preliminary approval. Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, Larry Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron. This purported federal securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 30, 2019. It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock. On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January 21, 2020. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class complaint on March 23, 2020, and the District Court denied that motion on August 17, 2022. The Company had reached a tentative settlement of this matter, which is subject to the Court's approval. The hearing to determine the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement has not yet been set. Community Health Systems -- http://www.chs.net/-- is one of the nation's leading healthcare providers.[BN] CONSOL ENERGY INC: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------- Consol Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the consolidated ERISA class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of two nonunion retired coal miners against CCC, COK, CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori, the Company's Chief Administrative Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits. Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs' employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan. Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated. On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class of retirees. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class certification was denied on all counts. On July 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Order denying class certification. The Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal on August 14, 2020. On October 1, 2020, the District Court entered a pretrial order setting the trial date, which was held in February 2021. No ruling has been issued by the judge. The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously defend this suit. CONSOL Energy Inc. is into coal mining based in Pennsylvania. COSAN CONSTRUCTION: Rule 23 Class Action Certification Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURO SANCHEZ, JUAN EUSEBIO SANTIAGO, and GUSTAVO MENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. COSAN CONSTRUCTION CORP., AMCG INC., TRADE SOLUTIONS INC., TERENCE JAMES FERGUSON, and AARON KING, Case No. 1:21-cv-06744-JLR-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion its entirety by so-ordering and entering the proposed order for class action certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime wages and statutory damages on behalf of themselves and all Construction Workers who worked for the Defendants' construction companies since December 25, 2014. Throughout this period, the Defendants failed to pay Construction Workers the correct overtime wages due to them for each hour worked over forty per workweek. the Defendants also failed to provide Construction Workers with wage notices when hired and with accurate wage statements at the end of each pay period, in violation of the NYLL and the WTPA. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a Class under Rule 23 to recover damages arising out of the Defendants' NYLL and WTPA violations. On June 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs Gustavo Mendez, Lauro Sanchez, and Juan Eusebio Santiago filed the Amended Complaint, which reasserts their claims under the FLSA, NYLL, and WTPA against all the Defendants. By November 9, 2022, forty-three more Construction Workers had joined this Action as opt-in plaintiffs. Cosan is a construction company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LTxsq8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. Christian Mercado, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com cuadra@pechmanlaw.com mercado@pechmanlaw.com DEVA CONCEPTS: Robaina Can't File Exclusion From Adams Class Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KATHERINE ROBAINA, Movant-Appellant v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLP, DBA DEVACURL, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-1142 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court denying Robaina's motion for leave to file for an exclusion from a class action settlement after she missed the opt-out deadline. Movant-Appellant Robaina appeals from an order entered by the district court denying her motion for leave to file for an exclusion from a class action settlement after she missed the opt-out deadline. On appeal, she argues that the district court misapplied the governing legal standard and thus abused its discretion when it denied her motion. Robaina is one of 117 claimants in Adams v. Deva Concepts, LLC, 20-cv-9717 (GHW) (S.D.N.Y.), a personal injury action. While Adams was pending, the plaintiffs in 13 other consolidated class actions arrived at a settlement agreement with the same defendants, which was preliminarily approved in July 2021. On Sept. 20, 2021, Robaina signed a letter requesting exclusion from the class action settlement in order to pursue her individual claim and timely delivered it to her counsel, Amy Davis, by email on Sept. 26, 2021. The deadline for submitting a claim in the class action settlement was Oct. 22, 2021, and while Davis submitted exclusion letters for 108 other plaintiffs in the class by that date, she accidentally failed to submit Robaina's letter. Because Robaina believed that she had successfully opted out of the class, she did not file a claim as part of the class action settlement. The district court entered an order finally approving the settlement on Jan. 3, 2022. On Jan. 19, 2022, Davis saw the final opt-out list and realized that Robaina had not been excluded from the settlement. On Feb. 3, 2022, with Davis still as counsel, Robaina filed a motion for leave to file for untimely exclusion from the class action settlement. On April 25, 2022, the district court denied Robaina's motion for leave to be excluded from the settlement, reasoning that Robaina did not meet the threshold for "excusable neglect" -- the standard required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). In reaching this conclusion, it applied the four factors to be considered in evaluating an assertion of excusable neglect as articulated by the Supreme Court in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993). Those factors are: (1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Pioneer also held that attorney mistake seldom meets this standard, as clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys. The district court emphasized the third Pioneer factor -- the reason for the delay -- and found that Robaina's counsel's mistake presented an insufficient basis to grant relief. While it acknowledged that the other three Pioneer factors were nominally more favorable to Robaina, the court found that they were insufficient to show excusable neglect. On appeal, Robaina argues that the district court abused its discretion for two related reasons. First, she asserts that the district court misread the caselaw and that courts should accept an untimely request for exclusion when the claimant exercised diligence and good faith in making the request, but delay was inadvertent or otherwise the result of mistake or carelessness, particularly when the delay is short and caused by events outside of the claimant's control. Second, she argues that the district court abused its discretion by "giving more weight to the third Pioneer factor while discounting the remaining three factors. While it is unfortunate that Robaina suffered the loss of her opt-out right due to her counsel's mistake, the Second Circuit concludes that she provides no legal basis under its precedent to find that the district court abused its discretion or misapplied the law when it denied her motion for leave to file for an exclusion from the class action settlement. It has considered Robaina's remaining arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Summary Order is available at https://rb.gy/hosus from Leagle.com. AMY E. DAVIS, Law Center of Amy E. Davis, LLC, Dallas, Texas, for the Movant-Appellant. JACLYN DEMAIS -- demaisj@gtlaw.com -- (Keith E. Smith -- smithkei@gtlaw.com -- and Katherine M. Clemente -- Katherine.Clemente@gtlaw.com -- on the brief), Greenberg Traurig LLP, Florham Park, New Jersey, for the Defendant-Appellee. DOWNER EDI: Faces 2nd Suit Over Breach of Contract Disclosures -------------------------------------------------------------- Roushni Nair in Bengaluru of Reuters reports that Australia's Downer EDI (DOW.AX) said on May 5, 2023 it was served with a second class action lawsuit by certain shareholders alleging breach of disclosures regarding a maintenance contract undertaken by the company's segment in July 2019. The class action, filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased Downer shares between July 2019 and February 2023, comes after the Australian contracting firm last December admitted to overstating its pre-tax earnings due to accounting irregularities. As a consequence of accounting discrepancies, Downer had revised down its FY23 underlying net profit after tax attributable forecast to between A$210 million ($140.60 million) and A$230 million from prior expectations of 10% to 20% growth on FY22's A$225.3 million. Earlier last month, a shareholders' lawsuit was filed against Downer, claiming it breached certain disclosure obligations under listing rules while also making misleading statements over its financial performance. Downer shares have lost 24% since the company disclosed the irregularities and its forecast downgrade on Dec. 8, as of last closing value. The Sydney-based company has been reeling under extreme regulatory scrutiny, which even led its chairman and finance chief to step down earlier this year. Downer is already sidelined by New South Wales' corruption regulators stating that employees dishonestly benefited from the payment or application of public funds for their own private advantage. [GN] ENOVIX CORP: Court Consolidates Twitchell & Rosin Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MAURICE L. TWITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs v. ENOVIX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: a. grants the motions to consolidate; b. grants the motions of the Discovery Funds and Gary Kung, appointing them as Co-Lead Plaintiffs (Dkt. Nos. 7, 17 in Case No. 23-cv-00071-SI; Dkt. No. 6 in Case No. 23-cv-00372-SI); c. appoints Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as the Co-Lead Counsel, and Sawyer & Labar LLP as the Liaison Counsel; and d. denies the remaining motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On Jan. 6 and 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed two class action lawsuits for violation of the federal securities laws against Defendants Enovix, Harrold Rust, Steffen Pietzke, Cameron Dales, and Thurman Rodgers -- Twitchell v. Enovix Corp., No. 23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2023) and Rosin v. Enovix Corp., No. 23-cv-00372-SI (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25. 2023). The Plaintiffs allege causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. The class actions are brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Enovix common stock (or Rodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition Corp. ("RSVAC") common stock prior to July 15, 2021) between Feb. 22, 2021, and Jan. 3, 2023, inclusive. According to the complaints, Enovix purports to design, develop, and manufacture silicon-anode lithium-ion batteries using proprietary 3D cell architecture, which the Company claims allow its batteries to achieve higher energy density. Since launching in 2007, the Company has focused on developing and commercializing its batteries. It did not generate any revenue from its products until the second quarter of 2022. On Feb. 22, 2021, Enovix announced its plan to become a publicly traded company, setting an 'ambitious goal' to both develop its own U.S.-based manufacturing line and to begin delivering products to customers (thereby recognizing its first product revenue) by the second quarter of 2022. On July 15, 2021, it became a publicly traded company. Rather than go public through a traditional initial public offering, Enovix merged with a special purpose acquisition company or "SPAC," a public shell corporation with no business of its own other than to acquire a private company. On July 14, 2021, it was officially acquired by RSVAC, which then changed its name to Enovix Corporation. As a result of this 'de-SPAC' transaction, RSVAC's publicly traded shares therefore became shares of Enovix when trading opened on Nasdaq on July 15, 2021. On July 14, 2021, the company announced in a press release that the gross cash proceeds raised through the de-SPAC merger would allow Enovix to build out its first two production facilities to support demand from blue chip customers in the global mobile computing market while continuing to develop cells for Electric Vehicles (EVs). The Plaintiffs allege that throughout the class period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Enovix's revenues and ability to manufacture its proprietary battery technology. On Nov. 1, 2022, Enovix announced that for the third quarter of 2022 it realized just $8,000 in revenue and that it anticipated achieving lower overall output from its "Fab-1" facility in 2023. On this news, Enovix fell from a close of $18.87 per share on October 31, 2022, to $10.53 per share by the close of trading on Nov. 2, 2022, a 44% decline. On Nov. 7, 2023, Enovix announced that Rodgers would become Executive Chairman. On Dec. 29, 2022, Rust departed as CEO of Enovix. On Jan. 3, 2023, Rodgers held a special presentation for investors, in which he revealed that the Company's second production facility and Gen2 lines would be delayed by several additional months because of the equipment failures experienced in the Fab-1 lines. On this news, Enovix's share price dropped 41% from a close of $12.12 per share on Jan. 3, 2022 to a close of $7.15 on Jan. 4, 2022. Now before the Court are unopposed motions to consolidate the two related cases and three contested motions for appointment of lead plaintiff filed by: Discovery Global Opportunity Master Fund Ltd. and Discovery Nymeria Master Fund, Ltd. (collectively, the "Discovery Funds"); Gary Kung; and Dale M. Wagner. The competing motions for lead plaintiff also seek appointment of lead counsel. Five additional motions to consolidate and for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed, but those movants have since withdrawn their motions or have filed notices of non-opposition because other movants appear to have the larger financial interest in the litigation. The matter came on for hearing on April 25, 2023. Following the hearing, the Court ordered the Discovery Funds to file a supplemental declaration, which they did on April 26, 2023. First, Judge Illston finds that the related cases allege the same causes of action against the same Defendants, arising out of the Nov. 1, 2022 and Jan. 3, 2023 disclosures. She finds that consolidation is appropriate, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, she consolidates the captioned related actions for all purposes into one action. These actions will be referred to as the "Consolidated Action." This order will apply to the Consolidated Action and to each case that is subsequently filed in the Court that relates to the same subject matter as in the Consolidated Action. Every pleading in the Consolidated Action, and any related action that is consolidated with the Consolidated Action, will bear the following caption: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE ENOVIX CORPORATION Case No. 23-cv-00071-SI SECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: [Title of Document] When the document being filed pertains to all actions, the phrase "All Actions" will appear immediately after the phrase "This Document Relates To:". When the document applies to some, but not all, of the actions, the document will list, immediately after the phrase "This Document Relates To:", the docket number for each individual action to which the document applies, along with the name of the first-listed plaintiff in said action. A Master Docket and Master File will be established for the Consolidated Action, and it will be No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI. All orders, pleadings, motions, and other documents shall, when filed and docketed in the Master File, be deemed filed and docketed in each individual case to the extent applicable. When an order, pleading, motion, or document is filed with a caption indicating that it is applicable to fewer than all individual actions in the Consolidated Action, the clerk will file such pleadings in the Master File and note such filing in the Master Docket and in the docket of each action referenced. The parties will file a Notice of Related Cases pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12 whenever a case that should be consolidated into this action is filed in, or transferred to, this District. If the Court determines that the case is related, the Clerk shall: place a copy of the Order in the separate file for such action; serve on the Plaintiff's counsel in the new case a copy of the Order; direct that this Order be served upon defendants in the new case; and make the appropriate entry in the Master Docket. Next, Judge Illston finds that the challenges Kung and Wagner bring regarding the Discovery Funds' typicality are insufficient to rebut the presumption that the Discovery Funds should be appointed lead plaintiff. Accordingly, she grants the Discovery Funds' motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. Nevertheless, as did the district court in Christian v. BT Group PLC, Judge Illston finds it would be prudent to appoint a co-lead plaintiff who held Enovix stock through the second disclosure. Gary Kung is the next in line for consideration as lead plaintiff, as Kung has the next-largest financial stake in the litigation between the remaining movants and otherwise meets the adequacy and typicality requirements of Rule 23. Accordingly, Judge Illston appoints as Co-Lead Plaintiff Gary Kung, who has the next highest financial losses and who otherwise meets the Rule 23 requirements of typicality and adequacy. Finally, Judge Illston appoints Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Co-Lead Counsel, and Sawyer & Labar LLP as Liaison Counsel. The Co-Lead Counsel is to avoid duplicative or unproductive activities. It will have the authority to speak for all Lead Plaintiffs and all Class members in matters regarding the litigation, including, but not limited to, pretrial proceedings, motion practice, trial, and settlement. No motion, request for discovery, or other pretrial proceedings will be initiated or filed by any Plaintiffs without the approval of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel, to prevent duplicative pleadings or discovery by the Plaintiffs. No settlement negotiations will be conducted without the approval of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel. The counsel in any related action that is consolidated with the Consolidated Action will be bound by the organization of the Plaintiffs' counsel. The Co-Lead Counsel will be the contact between the Plaintiffs' counsel and will direct and coordinate the activities of the Plaintiffs' counsel. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Illston grants the motions to consolidate. She grants the motions of the Discovery Funds and Gary Kung, appointing them as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. She further appoints Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as Co-Lead Counsel, and Sawyer & Labar LLP as Liaison Counsel. She denies the remaining motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/nwysb from Leagle.com. EPIC LANDSCAPE: Conditional Class Certification OK'd in Gomez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOSE GONZALEZ GOMEZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., EPIC LANDSCAPE PROUCTIONS, INC., JOHN CONSTANT, and MARTY SILER, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-CV-02198-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas grants the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective action but limits the time period in the class definition to three years. The Plaintiffs bring the putative class and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), alleging that Defendants Epic Landscape Productions, L.C., ("Epic LC"), Epic Landscape Productions, Inc., ("Epic Inc."), John Constant, and Marty Siler willfully failed to pay overtime compensation. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Corrected Motion and Incorporated Suggestions in Support of their Motion for Conditional Certification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Defendant Epic LC is a limited liability company with two members: Defendant Epic Inc. and Silbrook Landscape, Inc., which is not a party to this matter. Defendant John Constant is the owner of Defendant Epic Inc., and Defendant Marty Siler is the owner of Silbrook Landscape, Inc. The Plaintiffs comprise a group of current and former lawn and landscape workers who were hourly employees of Defendants. Gomez, who seeks to be designated as the class representative, has worked as a lawn and landscape worker for the Defendants since Feb. 4, 2019. Throughout his employment, the Defendants have paid him, as well as the other lawn and landscape workers, on an hourly basis. These workers often work in excess of 40-hours per week but, at least until July 2021, did not receive overtime premiums for such work. On May 30, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the putative collective action, asserting five claims. In Count I, they allege that the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to appropriately compensate them and the putative representative action Plaintiffs for their overtime work. In Count II, they allege that the Defendants violated Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 290.500 for failing to pay employees overtime. In Count III, they allege that the Defendants breached their contract with H-2B workers by agreeing to, but failing to, pay them overtime wages. In Count IV, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' U.S. workers are third party beneficiaries to the Defendants' contracts with H-2B workers, and that the Defendants breached those contracts by failing to provide overtime compensation. Finally, in Count V, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were unjustly enriched by improperly retaining the money that should have been paid to the non-H-2B workers in the form of overtime wages. The only claim at issue for purposes of the instant motion is the FLSA claim in Count I. The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of the following class: All current and former lawn and landscape workers, who worked for the Defendants at any time from three years and 120 days from the date of the Court's Order certifying this action to the Present. In support, the Plaintiffs provided 620 pages of the Defendants' pay records, as well as the Defendants' discovery responses. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion, asserting that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is too disparate for conditional certification. Judge Robinson finds that the Plaintiffs have made a colorable showing that the putative Plaintiffs worked for the same employer, performed similar duties as lawn and landscape workers, and that their allegations of FLSA overtime violations are based on the same policy of not paying such workers for their overtime work. She is satisfied that their allegations and supporting documentation are sufficient for purposes of sending notice of the action to potential class members. Next, Judge Robinson finds that (i) the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition is not too broad as written; (ii) the Plaintiffs' use of the three-year statute of limitations is appropriate but she denies their request to include the additional 120 days; and (iii) she designates Gomez as the class representative for the collective action and the Plaintiffs' counsel as the class counsel. Considering her decision that the action should be conditionally certified for purposes of notifying potential members of the class, Judge Robinson turns to the form and substance of the notice to potential class members, and addresses additional issues raised by the Plaintiffs with regard to notice. She holds that (i) a short meet-and-confer period on the notice and method of distribution is appropriate; (ii) the Defendants must provide a detailed class list of the putative class members; and (iii) she denies the Plaintiffs request that the statute of limitations be tolled for putative class members from the date the Plaintiffs filed the present motion until the close of the opt-in period and that the statute of limitations be tolled during any meet-and-confer period that the Court grants. Judge Robinson grants in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification. She conditionally certifies a collective action for the following class of persons: All current and former lawn and landscape workers, who worked for the Defendants at any time from April 28, 2020 through the date the Court grants conditional certification. Gomez is designated as the class representative and the Plaintiffs' counsel is approved to act as the class counsel. The parties are directed to meet and confer about the form and substance of the notice and dissemination plan and, if an agreement is reached, to submit the joint proposed notice and dissemination plan to the Court for approval within 14 days of the entry of the Order. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, then the Plaintiffs will file a motion within 14 days of the entry of the Order seeking approval of their proposed notice and dissemination plan. The Defendants will then file their objections to the Plaintiffs' proposed notice and submit an alternate proposed notice and dissemination plan within 5 days of the filing of the Plaintiffs' motion. The Defendants are ordered to provide the Plaintiffs with a list, both electronically in an Excel spreadsheet and by hard copy, of all individuals who meet the above class description, including their current or last known address, phone number, and e-mail address, within 14 days of the entry of the Order. Judge Robinson denies the Plaintiffs' requests for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for the putative class members. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://rb.gy/tmaei from Leagle.com. INTUIT INC: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Tax Filing Fee for $141-M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Loe of Fox 54 reports that in May 2022, attorneys general for all 50 states and the District of Columbia announced they had reached a $141 million settlement with Intuit, the creator of TurboTax, over claims that it misled customers into paying for free tax services. The settlement requires that TurboTax refund millions of impacted customers. Since the settlement was announced, many VERIFY readers have asked about how and when they will receive a payment. Recent Google search data also show people are wondering if they'll receive a check from the settlement. THE QUESTION Will eligible TurboTax users soon receive checks from a class action settlement? THE SOURCES TurboTax settlement website Attorneys general in multiple U.S. states THE ANSWER Yes, eligible TurboTax users will soon receive checks from a class action settlement. WHAT WE FOUND TurboTax customers who qualify for a class action settlement payment can expect a check in the mail in the coming weeks, according to the settlement website and attorneys general in multiple U.S. states. Checks will be mailed out starting the second week of May and will continue to arrive throughout the month, state attorneys general said in press releases on May 4. Some payments may not be mailed until late May, the settlement website says. Consumers are eligible for the settlement if they paid to file their federal tax returns through TurboTax for tax years 2016 through 2018, but qualified for the Internal Revenue Service's Free File program. Intuit said the company "admitted no wrongdoing" as part of the settlement agreement. The amount of money that eligible TurboTax customers will receive from the settlement is based on the number of tax years for which they qualify. Most people are expected to receive about $30, though people who filed their taxes for three consecutive years could get up to $85. People who are eligible for a payment do not need to file a claim. Anyone who qualifies will be notified via an email from Rust Consulting, the settlement administrator, and automatically receive a check in the mail. More than 4 million people in the U.S. will receive checks as part of the multistate settlement, the settlement website says. If you are eligible for the settlement and have not received a check by mid-June, you can visit the settlement website and request a reissued payment. You will need the claimant ID number in your email notice about eligibility for the settlement. People who would like to verify that a check they received in the mail is valid can also do so on the settlement website. You will need the claimant ID number and check number, which can be found on the tear-off portion of your check. [GN] JENNY CRAIG: Faces Class Suit Over WARN Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Sara Ruberg of NBC News reports that Jenny Craig employees are seeking to join a class-action lawsuit alleging the company violated federal and state WARN Acts, which require companies to give employees a 60-day notice ahead of any mass layoffs or facility closures. The lawsuit was filed in the New Jersey District Court on May 4, two days after the company sent an email to its employees announcing it would fully close. The WARN Act requires companies with 100 full-time employees or more to notify both the local and state governments, as well as its employees, 60 days before mass layoffs or closures. The complaint estimates hundreds of employees could be covered by the lawsuit. Some Jenny Craig employees received a WARN Act notice on April 25. One week later, Jenny Craig told its employees it would close the entire company by May 5. In an FAQ note sent to Jenny Craig employees and obtained by NBC News last week, the company told the staff, "Legally, per the Warn Act, employees reporting to the Corporate Office and NJ centers are entitled to pay for the full Warn Act notice period. However, as the financial status of the company is still in flux, it is not clear whether the separation date may be before 6/24 for Corporate and 7/24 for NJ centers and could be as early as next Friday 5/5. If it is before the full Warn Act notice date, we may not be in a position to continue payments to the employees for the full warn notice period." The FAQ note also told employees that they may not be paid for the full 60 days from the WARN Notice if the company chose to shut down before then, which the company ended up announcing a few days later. In termination letters sent earlier this week, Jenny Craig told employees they would receive "full compensation earned through your last day of work and all accrued, unused paid time off" but, according to the FAQ and Jack Raisner, one of the attorneys for the employees, the laid-off employees are owed pay through the 60 days. Raisner said the notice Jenny Craig sent to employees was essentially a "head fake" that didn't guarantee the company would remain open for the full 60 days after the notice, as required by the WARN Act. "It's important to people," Raisner said of the remaining money not paid to employees because of the earlier-than-expected layoffs. "It throws people into an enormous upheaval and free fall actually." No one at HIG Capital, the $55 billion private equity firm which acquired the weight loss company in 2019, or Jenny Craig could be reached for comment on the lawsuit. The employees are seeking pay for the full 60 days since the original notice was sent, as well as the monetary value of the benefits they would have enjoyed during that time. The WARN Act has been adapted to have stricter requirements in some states. In New Jersey, a new version of the WARN Act requires laid-off employees receive one week of severance for every year of service. Employees and legal experts said all signs of layoffs and closure notices point to a bankruptcy filing soon from JC USA, Inc. [GN] KROGER CO: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Vitort Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SARAH VITORT, a consumer residing in Oregon, individually and on behalf of all others situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KROGER COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-35185 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the putative class action complaint. Vitort appeals from the district court's dismissal of her putative class action complaint against Defendants-Appellees The Kroger Co. and Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. (together, "Kroger"). She alleged that Kroger violated multiple provisions of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Or. Rev. Stat. Sections 646.605, et seq. ("OUTPA"), and breached the implied warranty of merchantability when it falsely or misleadingly labeled a spreadable fruit product containing fruit-based sweeteners as "Just Fruit." The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's dismissal de novo and affirms. Firstly, it agrees with the district court's conclusion that Kroger's "Just Fruit" label is not objectively false. While many spreadable fruit products contain non-fruit ingredients, such as flavor extracts, non-fruit sugar, food coloring, or animal gelatin, it opines that each ingredient in Kroger's "Just Fruit" product derives from fruit. Accordingly, its label is not objectively false. The Ninth Circuit further agrees with the district court's conclusion that Kroger's "Just Fruit" label is not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. It concludes that Kroger's "Just Fruit" label is not likely to mislead a significant portion of reasonable grocery shoppers. It opines that the "Just Fruit" label does not expressly or impliedly say anything about the sugar content of the product, nor would a reasonable consumer interpret it as doing so. In the Ninth Circuit's view, the reasonable interpretation of the "Just Fruit" label forecloses Vitort's claims that Kroger committed an unlawful trade practice under the OUTPA. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the case with prejudice because Vitort has not alleged, and cannot allege, facts to state a plausible claim that the Just Fruit label is false, deceptive, or misleading. Because the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court on independent grounds, it does not reach the Parties' arguments about whether the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts Vitort's third and fifth claims. Similarly, it does not reach Kroger's argument that dismissal was separately justified because Vitort cannot establish that she experienced an ascertainable loss. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://rb.gy/8x1ce from Leagle.com. MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Dittman's Class Settlement Wins Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRYON DITTMAN, an individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the motion for final approval of a Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement resolving all claims asserted in this class and collective action. The lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff Dittman against Medical Solutions. The operative First Amended Complaint asserts California state law claims for unpaid overtime (Cal. Labor Code Sections 510, 1194), unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.), waiting time penalties (Cal. Labor Code Section 203), and civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, et seq.), as well as a federal claim for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.). On Oct. 23, 2018, the Court certified the following: a. Rule 23 Class with respect to the state law claims for unpaid overtime, unfair business practices and waiting time penalties: All non-exempt hourly healthcare professionals employed by Medical Solutions who, at any time from Sept. 7, 2013 through Oct. 23, 2018, worked in California pursuant to a Travel Assignment Agreement during which they received housing and/or meal and incidental benefits, received overtime pay, and had the value of their housing and/or meals and incidental benefits excluded from their regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime pay. b. FLSA Collective with respect to the FLSA claim: All non-exempt hourly healthcare professionals employed by Medical Solutions in the United States who, at any time since Oct. 23, 2018, worked pursuant to a Travel Assignment during which they received housing and/or meal and incidental benefits, worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks, and had the value of their housing and/or meals and incidental benefits excluded from their regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime pay. Following certification, a Court-approved third-party administrator disseminated a Court-approved notice to the members of the Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective providing an opportunity to opt-out of the Rule 23 Class and opt-in to the FLSA Collective. After excluding opt-outs, the Rule 23 Class included 2,770 individuals. In addition, 669 individuals timely opted-in to the FLSA Collective. On Sept. 11, 2019, the Court issued an Order on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, in which it granted in part and denied in part each party's motion. It granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff as to Medical Solutions' liability for (1) failing to properly calculate overtime rates in compliance with the California Labor Code and FLSA, (2) PAGA penalties, and (3) liquidated damages under the FLSA. In turn, the Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Medical Solutions on (1) the waiting time claim and (2) the request for an extended three-year statute of limitations period on the FLSA claim. On July 21, 2022, the Court issued an Order granting Medical Solution's motion to decertify the Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective without prejudice to the Plaintiff filing a renewed motion to certify the class and collective. Before the members of the Rule 23 Class and FLSA collective were provided notice of the decertification Order, however, the parties reached the present Settlement pursuant to which the parties stipulated to recertification of the previously certified Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective. Accordingly, the Settlement is on behalf of the 2,770 individuals who did not opt-out of the previously certified Rule 23 Class ("Rule 23 Settlement Class") and the 669 individuals who affirmatively opted-in to the previously certified FLSA Collective ("FLSA Settlement Collective"). On Dec. 20, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, conditionally certified the Rule 23 Settlement Class and FLSA Settlement Collective and ordered that notice of the Settlement be disseminated to all members of the class and collective. In accordance with that Order, notice of the Settlement was sent to the members of the Rule 23 Settlement Class and FLSA Settlement Collective. The Court received no objections to the Settlement. The present motion for final approval of the Settlement was filed on March 16, 2023, and a motion for attorneys' fees, costs, service award, and settlement administration expenses was filed on Feb. 27, 2023. A final fairness hearing was held on April 20, 2023. Judge England has now considered all papers, evidence and argument submitted regarding the Settlement. He grants final approval of the Settlement and finds that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate and satisfies the standards for final approval of a class action settlement under federal law. The parties will fulfill the terms of the Settlement. Judge England confirms certification of the Rule 23 Settlement Class and FLSA Settlement Collective. The members of the Rule 23 Settlement Class will be deemed to have released the Released Parties from the Class Released Claims as those terms are defined in the Settlement. The members of the FLSA Settlement Collective will be deemed to have released the Released Parties from FLSA Released Claims as those terms are defined in the Settlement. In accordance with the terms of the Settlement, Judge England approves the following payments: (i) the class counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,541,666.66 and reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $37,464.72; (ii) a class representative service award to the Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000; (iii) settlement administration fees and expenses to CPT Group, Inc. in the amount of $23,250. The Order and Judgment will constitute final judgment for the purpose of Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without affecting the finality of the matter, the Court will retain jurisdiction over this action and the parties for purposes of enforcing the terms and conditions of the Settlement. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order & Judgment is available at https://rb.gy/njicw from Leagle.com. MISSISSIPPI: 5th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Gonzales v. Gillis -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Louis Gonzalez, also known as Carlos Ramos Sanchez, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Shawn R. Gillis; Stanley Crockett; Chad Wolf; William Barr, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-60634 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reverses the order dismissing Gonzalez's claims with prejudice and remands for the district court to enter a new order of dismissal without prejudice. Gonzalez, an immigration detainee, alleges that the warden of a privately operated detention center and three former federal officials violated his rights by restricting his use of the LexisNexis database. After the district court sua sponte dismissed Gonzalez's claims, he appealed. When Gonzalez filed his complaint on April 16, 2020, he was detained at a private facility in Washington, Mississippi (the Washington facility), which contracts with the federal government to house immigration detainees. The complaint asserts that Gonzalez and other detainees are challenging their prolonged immigration detention through habeas corpus petitions. On March 20, 2020, the Washington facility allegedly changed the LexisNexis law program installed on the law library computers by removing federal and immigration cases. Gonzalez alleges that those cases are vital for the detainees' defense and that the removal of those cases is therefore "hindering" him and other detainees from preparing their cases to challenge effectively the prolonged detention they are suffering. In addition, the Washington facility allegedly disabled the "right click" button on mice in the library, which kept detainees from copying and pasting and forced them to type long paragraphs of law into their allegations. Gonzalez's complaint includes four causes of action against the warden of the Washington facility, the Director of the New Orleans Field Office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General of the United States. He brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that the Defendants violated his federal constitutional "right of access to the courts," claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2) and (3) alleging that the Defendants conspired to interfere with his due process right of access to the courts, and a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Gonzalez seeks declaratory relief and an injunction immediately providing him and the class he represents, with the part of the LexisNexis program that was removed, allowing the right click button to copy and paste, and preventing the Defendants from removing or modifying the system without consulting the Plaintiff for any removal or modification of the computer system that may hamper Gonzalez and the class he represents from presenting pro se claims in courts. He also seeks $150,000 in damages. In July 2020, a magistrate judge directed service on the Defendants. The federal-officer Defendants moved to dismiss the case, Gonzalez filed an opposition brief, and then Gonzalez moved to amend his complaint. In December 2020, the federal-officer Defendants filed a response to Gonzalez's motion stating that they did not object to the amended complaint, and the warden filed an answer to the amended complaint. Five months later, the magistrate judge sua sponte recommended that the district court dismiss the case for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The report and recommendation (R. & R.) construed Gonzalez's Section 1983 claims as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and recommended dismissing those claims against all Defendants in their official capacities. With respect to Gonzalez's individual-capacity Bivens claims, the R. & R. did not consider whether Bivens should be extended to access-to-courts claims and instead found that Gonzalez had not adequately alleged that the Defendants caused him to lose a nonfrivolous claim. The R. & R. recommended dismissal of Gonzalez's Section 1985(2) and (3) claims because he failed to adequately allege a conspiracy and recommended dismissal of his Section 1985(3) claim because he did not "mention his race" in the complaint. And the R. & R. found that Gonzalez had not adequately alleged the elements of an IIED claim under Mississippi law. Finally, the R. & R. concluded that Gonzalez's claims for injunctive relief were moot because he had been transferred out of the Washington facility. The R. & R. recommended that all these claims be dismissed with prejudice. Because the magistrate judge found that Gonzalez's proposed amended complaint did not remedy the pleading deficiencies identified in the R. & R., the magistrate judge also recommended that the district court deny Gonzalez's motion to amend his complaint. After Gonzalez failed to timely file objections to the R. & R., the district court adopted the R. & R. and dismissed the case with prejudice. Final judgment was entered on July 9, 2021. Eleven days later, Gonzalez filed objections to the R. & R., and two days after that, he moved for relief from the district court's final order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing that his objections were timely. On Aug. 11, 2021, he filed a notice of appeal. On Sept. 14, 2021, the district court overruled Gonzalez's objections. Although it concluded that the objections were untimely, the district court still reviewed de novo those parts of the R. & R. to which Gonzalez had objected. On de novo review, it again adopted the R. & R. Separately, it issued an order denying Gonzalez's Rule 60(b) motion. The Fifth Circuit holds that Gonzalez's access-to-courts claims under Bivens are not adequately pleaded. On appeal, Gonzalez argues that the district court erred in dismissing these claims because the law library is inadequate and the defendants acted willfully. But, the Fifth Circuit holds that there is no abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance. For Gonzalez to have been denied access to the courts, he must allege that he has a nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim. Because he has not done so, the district court correctly dismissed these claims. The Fifth Circuit further holds that the district court also correctly dismissed Gonzalez's claims under Section 1985(2) and (3) because he failed to adequately allege a conspiracy. On appeal, Gonzalez argues that the district court erred in dismissing these claims because the law library is inadequate and the defendants acted willfully. But there is no "abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance." For Gonzalez to have been denied access to the courts, he must allege that he has a nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim. Because he has not done so, the district court correctly dismissed these claims. The district court also correctly dismissed Gonzalez's claims under Section 1985(2) and (3) because he failed to adequately allege a conspiracy. The Fifth Circuit says Gonzalez's complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a conspiracy claim that is plausible on its face with respect to any of the named Defendants. As the district court concluded, Gonzalez's claims for injunctive relief are moot. The Fifth Circuit says although Gonzalez's complaint seeks an injunction with respect to conditions at the Washington facility, he has been transferred to a different detention center, and he does not point to any evidence of a demonstrated probability or reasonable expectation of transfer back to the Washington facility or reincarceration there. Gonzalez's claims for injunctive relief as to the Washington facility are therefore moot. For these reasons, the dismissal of Gonzalez's claims for injunctive relief is affirmed. Construed liberally, Gonzalez's brief argues that the district court erred in dismissing his case with prejudice. The Fifth Circuit agrees. To start, Gonzalez has not had an adequate opportunity to cure his pleading deficiencies because his proposed amendments were not drafted with the benefit of the R. & R. or the district court's dismissal order. Further, Gonzalez's objections to the R. & R. include new factual allegations that show that he has not pleaded his best case. The general rule that dismissal should be without prejudice applies in the case. The Fifth Circuit reverses and remands for the district court to enter a new order dismissing the case without prejudice. Judge Stephen A. Higginson, writing for the Fifth Circuit, agrees with the district court that Gonzalez's claims for injunctive relief are moot and his other claims are inadequately pleaded. However, he concludes that the district court erred in dismissing Gonzalez's claims with prejudice when he had not yet been given an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege his best case. Therefore, Judge Higginson reverses and remands for the district court to enter a new order of dismissal. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Opinion is available at https://rb.gy/op08x from Leagle.com. MY PILLOW: Deutsch Lose Summary Judgment in Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Deutsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. My Pillow, Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-00318-SRN-ECW (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Susan Richard Nelson entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied. 2. The Defendants motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and appointment of class representatives and class counsel are granted. 4. The Court certifies the following Rule 23 class: "All former Call Center Representatives, or other job titles performing similar job duties, employed by My Pillow, Inc., at any time from July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, who were not paid for all hours worked." This class is certified with respect to the Plaintiffs' claim for a violation of the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act. Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Lyons are appointed as class representatives. The Plaintiffs' counsel, Jacob R. Rusch, Timothy J. Becker, and Zackary S. Kaylor of Johnson Becker, PLLC, and Jennell K. Shannon of Ballard Spahr LLP, are appointed as class counsel. The Plaintiff Brandon Deutsch filed the original Complaint on January 24, 2020, on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated call center employees, alleging violations of: (1) the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for failure to pay overtime wages. (2) the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act (MPWA), for failure to timely pay straight time wages. (3) the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA), for failure to keep accurate records. In addition, Mr. Deutsch asserted a claim for civil penalties on behalf of the Minnesota Commissioner of Labor & Industry for the alleged violations of the MFLSA and MPWA, Count IV. Mr. Deutsch worked for My Pillow from December 16, 2017, to September 27, 2019. He worked "40 hours or more in 5 of his 95 weeks of employment. "My Pillow terminated Mr. Deutsch for tardiness and for not reporting for his shifts. My Pillow is a pillow manufacturing company known for its eponymous patented pillow. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ND6d4y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 - and- Jennell K. Shannon, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 The Defendant is represented by: Alec J. Beck, Esq. Andrew D. Parker, Esq. Lori A. Johnson, Esq. PARKER DANIELS KIBORT LLC 123 N. Third Street, Suite 888 Minneapolis, MN 55401 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Unredacted Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Sweeney and Bryan Marshall, as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Nationwide Savings Plan, v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company; Nationwide Life Insurance Company; and the Investment Committee of the Nationwide Savings Plan, David Berson, David LaPaul, Kevin O'Brien, Klaus Diem, Michael Mahaffey, and Michael P. Leach, Case No. 2:20-cv-01569-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs seek leave to file an unredacted version of their Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification, and certain exhibits to the Declaration of Eleanor Frisch submitted in connection with their Reply, under seal on the following grounds: 1. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5.2.1.(a) and 8 of the Stipulation and Agreed Protective Order in Edwards v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-1525, which the Court has previously applied to this case, a party seeking to submit documents that contain information designated as "Confidential Matters." 2. The Plaintiffs' Reply references portions of the record that contain Confidential Matters that the Court approved for filing under seal in connection with the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the Defendants' Memorandum. Nationwide is an insurance and financial service company, focusing on domestic property and casualty insurance, life insurance. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LtCacF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric H. Zagrans, Esq. ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC 1640 Roundwyck Lane Columbus, OH 43065-8416 Telephone: (440) 452-7100 E-mail: eric@zagrans.com - and - Kai H. Richter, Esq. Eleanor Frisch, Esq. Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Daniel R. Sutter, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 400 South Fourth Street No. 401-27 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 807-1575 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com krichter@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com efrisch@cohenmilstein.com NEW JERSEY: Court Narrows Claims in Planker v. Atkins and NJDOC --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEVIN PLANKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. LAWRENCE ATKINS, et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 20-4264 (MCA) (D.N.J.), Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey permits to proceed in part and dismisses in part Planker's Amended Complaint. Planker has filed a 114-page Amended Complaint that attempts to bring sweeping claims on behalf of prisoners practicing "Organic Asatru" and former prisoners practicing Asatru as parolees. He principally claims that he and other prisoners practicing Asatru within the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("NJDOC") are being denied opportunities and various religious items and accommodations necessary to practice their Asatru religious faith and that the NJDOC has made such accommodations for other religious faiths. He previously sought leave to submit an Amended Complaint and the Court deems the Amended Complaint to be the operative complaint in the action. Although Planker paid the filing fee, he subsequently sought and received IFP status. At this time, Judge Arleo screens Planker's Amended Complaint for dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). The original complaint is purportedly signed by a former prisoner named Ryan Pittinger, who was released from the NJDOC in 2020. Prior to screening the Amended Complaint, the Court required Pittinger respond in writing as to whether he intended to proceed in the action. That Order was returned as undeliverable to Pittinger, and Judge Arleo deems the action withdrawn without prejudice as to this Plaintiff. The Amended Complaint also alleges that Gary Tozzi, a former prisoner within the NJDOC, is a plaintiff in the action. The Complaint contends that Tozzi is filing the complaint on behalf of himself and other civilians who are attempting to practice Asatru on probation and parole. It states that Tozzi is seeking religiously acceptable medical treatment, a religious diet, natural cosmetics and detergents, ritually appropriate food preparations, religious items, areas, and conditions necessary to practice their religious beliefs. Tozzi, however, has not signed the Amended Complaint, and Judge Arleo does not consider him to be a plaintiff in the action. The Amended Complaint also lists 175 prisoners who purportedly practice Asatru and contends that there are over 400 prisoners who have practiced Asatru within the NJDOC over an unspecified time period. None of these prisoners have signed the Amended Complaint, and Judge Arleo does not consider them to be plaintiffs in the matter. The Plaintiff has also filed a motion to amend seeking to add another former prisoner, Kyle Powell, to the Complaint as a Plaintiff. Powell presumably would replace Pittinger to "represent" former prisoners who are seeking to practice Asatru while on parole. Judge Arleo holds that a pro se prisoner, however, cannot represent a putative class. Moreover, she finds that the allegations about former prisoners in the Amended Complaint are not specific to Powell (or Planker), are conclusory at best, and do not state claims for relief against any Defendants. She therefore denies without prejudice the request to add Powell as a Plaintiff and also dismisses without prejudice all claims in the Amended Complaint related to former prisoners seeking to practice Asatru while on parole/probation. The Planker also seeks to add James Gallichio who is presently incarcerated at South Woods State Prison. Although Gallichio claims to have "contributed" to the Complaint, Judge Arleo holds that Gallichio provides no other facts from which the Court could conclude that he shares Planker's sincerely-held religious beliefs regarding Organic Asatru, and the Amended Complaint and Gallichio's Declaration are silent about Gallichio's belief system. As such, she denies the motion to amend to add Gallichio as a Plaintiff. Planker, as a pro se plaintiff, also cannot represent a putative class. Judge Arleo explains that she intends to proceed certain claims and the Defendants in the Amended Complaint. She orders that after Planker completes the forms to serve the Defendants, he may file a formal motion for pro bono counsel and set forth the reasons why counsel should be appointed in this matter. If counsel is appointed, he or she would decide whether to seek class action treatment or move to add additional plaintiffs to the case. At this juncture, however, Planker is the only Plaintiff in this matter. Planker is currently an inmate at South Woods State Prison ("SWSP"). He has been incarcerated for over 20 years within the NJDOC. According to the Amended Complaint, he was incarcerated at New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP") from 1999-2017, transferred to Northern State Prison ("NSP") and East Jersey State Prison ("EJSP") between 2017 and 2021, and transferred to SWSP or about Sept. 27, 2021. Planker alleges that he requested to practice "Organic Asatru" at each facility but was denied by Warren Wilcox at NJSP, Reverend Dr. Brantley at NSP, Reverend Lawrence Atkins at EJSP, and Reverend Philip Harden at SWSP. According to him, Defendants Atkins, Brantley, Wilcox, Hines, Amir5 and Harden denied him the ability to practice Asatru as it is approved for practice within the NJDOC. He further alleges that he has not be able to practice Organic Asatru "as it has been approved by the New Jersey Department of Corrections since 2004" or the way he has requested to practice it. The Plaintiff contends that "other groups" both religious and nonreligious have been given preferential treatment. He appealed to the Religious Issues Committee after the NJDOC administration upheld the chaplains, and he also appealed to the Commissioner's Office and the Central Office. He alleges that he has not been able to perform a single Asatru rite during his incarceration. With respect to the denial of Planker's religious freedom, Judge Arleo liberally construes the Amended Complaint to assert violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc-1 ("RLUIPA"), the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the First Amendment Establishment Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. From the outset, the State, its agencies, and its officials sued in their official capacities for damages are not "persons" under Section 1983. As such, the Section 1983 claims against the State and its officials in their official capacities are dismissed with prejudice. Judge Arleo, however, permits the First Amendment and equal protection claims to proceed against Wilcox, Brantley, Hines, Ameer, Atkins, Harden in their individual capacities for damages and in their official capacities for injunctive relief based on the detailed allegations against them in the Amended Complaint. She also proceeds First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Brantley, Hines, and Ameer based on discrete incidents of alleged retaliation Planker describes in detail in his Complaint. Judge Arleo also permits the RLUIPA claims to proceed against the State of New Jersey/NJDOC for injunctive relief only. She dismisses the RLUIPA claims for damages because of Eleventh Amendment immunity as to the State of New Jersey and all the Defendants sued in their official capacities for damages. At this early stage, it is not clear who can provide injunctive relief to the Plaintiff under RLUIPA, if warranted. Judge Arleo also proceeds the RLUIPA claims against Wilcox, Brantley, Hines, Ameer, Atkins, and Harden in their official capacities for injunctive relief only. She also permits the RLUIPA claims to proceed against Victor Lee, Coordinator of Religious Services for the NJDOC, Michelle Ricci, Religious Issues Committee Member and Director of the Division of Operations for NJDOC, and Keisha Fischer, Administrator of SWSP (where the Plaintiff currently resides), in their official capacities for injunctive relief only. The Plaintiff has also sued Fischer, Lee, Ricci, and a number of other high-ranking supervisory prison and government officials, including former Commissioner of the NJDOC Marcus Hicks, Assistant Commissioner of the NJDOC Stephen D'Ilio, former Governor Chris Christie, and Governor Phil Murphy, for deliberate indifference. His Complaint claims in a conclusory manner that these Defendants were "deliberately indifferent" to prison officials' refusal to permit him to practice Asatru. Judge Arleo holds that these conclusory allegations do not plausibly suggest the liability of these Defendants in their individual capacities for damages under Section 1983. She dismisses without prejudice the civil rights claims against Fischer, Lee, Ricci, Hicks, D'Ilio, Lanigan, Christie, and Murphy in their individual capacities for damages. Likewise, she finds that the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient facts suggesting that Hicks, D'Ilio, Lanigan, Christie, or Murphy could provide him with injunctive relief under Section1983 or RLUIPA for violations of his religious rights. As such, she likewise dismisses without prejudice the official capacity claims for injunctive relief under Section 1983 and RLUIPA as to these Defendants. In addition to the Defendants listed, Judge Arleo construes Planker's Amended Complaint to allege that other individual Defendants directly violated his constitutional rights under Section 1983. Planker has sued Dr. Musser, the head of mental health at Facility 2 at SWSP. Judge Arleo has reviewed the allegations in Count Twenty-Five and proceeds First Amendment free exercise claim against this Defendant based on her decision to place Planker in a mental health unit after he told her about his religious beliefs. Planker has also sued Doctor D'Adonna, who allegedly discriminated against him for religious reasons and retaliated against him by intentionally scheduling him for mandatory appointments that interfered with his sincerely-held religious beliefs. Judge Arleo has reviewed the allegations against this Defendant in Count twenty-five and proceeds a First Amendment free exercise claim against this Defendant. The Plaintiff has sued Anthony Gangi, a prison official at Northern State Prison, who denied Planker musical instruments for religious use while allowing other prisoners to have musical instruments and encouraged Planker get vaccinated against COVID-19 against his religious beliefs to get organic food packages but subsequently denied him organic food packages. Judge Arleo proceeds a First Amendment free exercise claim against this Defendant. Judge Arleo also proceeds claims against the following John/Jane Doe Defendants subject to their identification in discovery. She proceeds a First Amendment retaliation claim against John Doe I, a prison official who allegedly had Planker "shipped out" of EJSP in August 2019 in retaliation for filing administrative grievances. She proceeds a First Amendment retaliation and inadequate medical care claim against John Doe II, a prison official at NSP, who refused to provide Planker with his heart medication after making comments about his religion and his interactions with Defendant Hines. Judge Arleo proceeds a First Amendment retaliation and inadequate medical care claim against Jane Doe III, a nurse at NSP who took Planker's heart disease medication during a one-week period in September 2021, refused to let him see a doctor for medical advice, and refused to return his medication due to his religion and his interaction with religious staff. Judge Arleo dismisses without prejudice the remaining John/Jane Doe Defendants for failure to state a claim for relief. Judge Arleo also dismisses without prejudice the Section 1983 claims against Linda Linen, a prison official at SWSP. The Plaintiff alleges that this Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to "plaintiffs" right to practice Asatru and receive equal treatment, and subjected the "plaintiffs" to unsafe conditions. Judge Arleo says there are insufficient allegations to state any claims for relief against this Defendant. Planker has also sued Universal Healthcare or Rutgers, for violations of his rights to religious freedom and violations of his right to medical care. Judge Arleo holds that entities like Rutgers, which provide healthcare services for to the County pursuant to a contract, cannot be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Thus, to state a claim for relief, Planker must provide facts showing that CFG had a relevant policy or custom, and that the policy or custom caused the constitutional violation he alleges. He has not provided policy or custom allegations and his claims against Rutgers are dismissed without prejudice. Planker has also sued JPay, for banning photographs that are "required" by his religion. Judge Arleo says Planker alleges in passing that JPay "provides" religious materials, videos and services for some religious groups but not for Asatru prisoners, but many of the allegations against JPay are unrelated to the prisoners religious rights. The Plaintiff has sued Securus Technologies under the same theory of liability. Judge Arleo says the Plaintiff has not pleaded a policy or custom claim against either entity, and she dismisses the claims against JPay and Securus without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. Finally, in Count Fourteen, Planker sues the United States for keeping cannabis as a Schedule I drug. This claim is frivolous and is dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief, Judge Arleo holds. She says the allegations in the Complaint otherwise involve state (rather than federal) actors and entities, and amendment to the claims against the United States would be futile. As such, this dismissal is with prejudice. Based on the foregoing, Judge Arleo orders that the Amended Complaint will be filed. She denies the motions to amend and for a hearing. The Amended Complaint is proceeded in part and dismissed in part pursuant to the Court's screening authority under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). The Complaint will proceed as to Defendants State of New Jersey/NJDOC, Warren Wilcox, Reverend Dr. Brantley, Reverend Lawrence Atkins, Reverend Philip Harden, Reverend Hines, Tariq Ameer, Michelle Ricci, Victor Lee, Keisha Fischer, Dr. Mussey, Dr. D'Adonna, Anthony Gangi, John Doe I, John Doe II, and Jane Doe III, with respect to the claims described in the Memorandum and Order; the remaining claims and Defendants are dismissed. The Clerk of the Court will provide the Plaintiff with copies of the USM-285 form for the Defendants State of New Jersey/NJDOC, Warren Wilcox, Reverend Dr. Brantley, Reverend Lawrence Atkins, Reverend Philip Harden, Reverend Hines, Tariq Ameer, Michelle Ricci, Victor Lee, Keisha Fischer, Dr. Mussey, Dr. D'Adonna, and Anthony Gangi. The Plaintiff will complete the forms for these Defendants only and return them to the Clerk of the Court. Upon the Plaintiff's sending of the completed forms to the Clerk of the Court, the Clerk will issue summons, and the United States Marshal will serve a copy of the Amended Complaint, summons, and the Order upon the Defendant, with all costs of service advanced by the United States. The Defendant will file and serve a responsive pleading within the time specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. The Clerk will notify the Plaintiff of the opportunity to apply in writing to the assigned judge for the appointment of pro bono counsel. If at any time prior to the filing of a notice of appearance by the Defendant(s), the Plaintiff seeks the appointment of pro bono counsel or other relief, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and (d), the Plaintiff will (1) serve a copy of the application by regular mail upon each party at his last known address and (2) file a Certificate of Service;. The Court will administratively terminate the case at this time for docket management purposes; it retains jurisdiction over the matter, which will be reopened once the Plaintiff's submits the USM forms and service of at least one Defendant is completed. The Clerk of the Court will serve the Plaintiff with copies of the Memorandum and Order via regular mail. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://rb.gy/n9knq from Leagle.com. NEW YORK, NY: Miller Suit Parties to Refile Class Notice in 14 Days ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAHKEEM MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-2616 (PKC), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York orders the parties to resubmit their proposed Notice to Class Members within 14 days. Judge Castel has reviewed the Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement and he says he appreciates the diligence of counsel, the parties, and the mediator in their efforts to resolve the action. He is presently inclined to grant preliminary approval but has certain reservations about the proposed Notice to Class Members. Judge Castel understands the challenges of drafting a Notice for a population of imprisoned or formerly imprisoned persons who are unlikely to be sophisticated in class actions. The purpose of the Notice is to enable a class member to make an informed decision. In the case, Judge Castel finds that the Notice unintentionally lacks clarity. It introduces the notion of "Challenging" the amount of an individual's damages before explaining the concepts and consequences of remaining in the class or opting out or objecting to the settlement. He says the Notice should first explain that if a would-be class member believes that the settlement formula -- i.e., the $400 per day rate or the $450 per day rate for people with Serious Mental Illness or people who were under 22 years old -- is too low or perceives any other deficiency in the settlement, the person may opt out of the class and pursue his own action or remain in the class and object to the settlement. The Notice should explain that a "Challenge," as the term is used throughout the Notice, will not affect the $400/$450 rates or any other term of the settlement. In addition, Judge Castel points out that the Notice should refer to the possible attorneys' fees and costs in a consistent manner. It should disclose an intent to apply to the Court for a differential payment of $20,000 for each of the seven class representatives in addition to the amount they receive as part of the settlement and explain whether this is included in the 25% maximum. Finally, Judge Castel notes that the Notice should also disclose that the parties estimate that the Anticipated Maximum Total Payment Amount is $53,018,550 and that, if this amount is achieved, the maximum attorneys' fees and costs that class counsel would seek is up to $13,254,638. This information is material to making an informed judgment. For these reasons, Judge Castel orders the parties may resubmit the proposed Notice within 14 days. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/1s2d7 from Leagle.com. NEW YORK, NY: More Time to Finalize Settlement in Payne Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Payne et al v. De Blasio et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08924 (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an order staying any such motion practice sine die, to allow the parties to finalize the settlement of this matter and submit the settlement documents for court approval. The parties respectfully request until June 30, 2023, to submit the motion along with proposed class settlement documents. This matter was brought as a putative class action for declaratory relief and monetary damages. The proposed class will consist of people arrested between May 28, 2020, and June 4, 2020, at specific protest locations in New York City. The parties have agreed to several terms including the amounts for claims awards for putative class members, and to stay further discovery pending submission of a settlement stipulation for the Court's approval. The parties also intend to attempt to separately resolve the Plaintiffs' reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. To be clear, these settlement terms, and the agreed upon stay of discovery, cover only the Sow case. The parties have significant work to do to finalize this class action settlement and are working together in good faith to complete these tasks. This include negotiating the additional terms of the settlement, preparing a full stipulation of settlement, a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, appointment of a class administrator, and certification of the class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and proposed class notices and claim forms, among other things. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4166y2F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan C. Moore, Esq. David B. Rankin, Esq. Luna Droubi, Esq. Marc Arena, Esq. Deema Azizi, Esq. Rebecca Pattiz, Esq. Katherine “Q” Adams, Esq. Regina Powers, Esq. BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, PH/26th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 490-0400 Facsimile: (212) 277-5880 E-mail: jmoore@blhny.com drankin@blhny.com ldroubi@blhny.com marena@blhny.com dazizi@blhny.com rpattiz@blhny.com qadams@blhny.com rpowers@blhny.com - and - Wylie Stecklow, Esq. WYLIE STECKLOW PLLC Carnegie Hall Tower 152 W. 57th Street, 8th Floor NYC NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 566-8000 E-mail: Ecf@wylielaw.com - and - Gideon Orion Oliver, Esq. GIDEON LAW 277 Broadway, Suite 1501 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (718) 783-3682 Facsimile: (646) 349-2914 E-mail: Gideon@GideonLaw.com - and - Elena L. Cohen, Esq. J. Remy Green, Esq. Jessica Massimi, Esq. COHEN&GREEN P.L.L.C. 1639 Centre Street, Suite 216 Ridgewood (Queens), NY 11385 Telephone: (929) 888-9480 Facsimile: (929) 888-9457 NOVA HOME: Savinova Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Homecare Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELENA SAVINOVA, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NOVA HOME CARE, LLC, et. Al, Case No. 3:20-cv-01612-SVN (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "homecare workers who worked for Nova Home and Southern Home Care Services between October 21, 2018, and the present, and who had any workweeks split between Nova and Southern on the same live-in assignments." The Plaintiffs also seek to appoint Savinova as a class epresentative, and appoint Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. as class counsel. Nova Home is a homecare agencies offers personal home care assistance, caregiver services & private duty nursing. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/413AHzu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com - and - Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: osavytska@llrlaw.com O.H. BARKHORDAR: Carrasco Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charity Carrasco, as an aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004, v. O.H. BARKHORDAR D.D.S., INC., a California corporation; O.H. BARKHORDAR DENTAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation; OMID BARKHORDAR DENTAL CORPORATION, a California corporation; OMID HAMID BARKHORDAR DENTAL INC., a California corporation; BARKHORDAR DENTAL, INC., a California corporation; OMID R BARKHORDAR DDS, INC., a California corporation; OMID RABI BARKHORDAR D.D.S., INC., a California corporation; O.R. H.R. BARKHORDAR DENTAL, INC., a California corporation; O.R. BARKHORDAR D.D.S, INC., a California corporation; RABI BARKHORDAR DENTAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation; OMID BARKHORDAR, an individual; HAMID BARKHORDAR, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09512 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, codified at Labor Code section 2698 ("PAGA"), against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and/or 7 straight workdays in a workweek without paying them proper overtime wages, as a result of, without limitation, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring employees: to remain on-call, to suffer under Defendants' control to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the clock, to attend company meetings off the clock, to make phone calls off the clock; failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, and other forms of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay; detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or manipulation of time entries to show less hours than actually worked, and for paying straight pay instead of overtime pay, to the detriment of Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, placing orders, supervising responsibilities at the back office, inventory, organizing documents, and various other technical office job duties. O.H. Barkhordar D.D.S., Inc., a California corporation is and a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Felipe Gomez, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrawlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com felipe@tomorrowlaw.com OLYMPIAN LABS: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Zarzuela -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ZARZUELA, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. OLYMPIAN LABS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02094-PGG-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein entered an order as follows: a. Initial document requests and May 11, 2023 initial interrogatories will be produced by: b. The deadline for joining parties or May 25, 2023 filing amended pleadings is: c. Depositions will take place: Aug. 25, 2023 d. All non-expert discovery will Aug. 25, 2023 be completed by: e. Deadline for any request to Judge Nov. 13, 2023 Gardephe for permission to make a motion for summary judgment: f. Any motion for class certification Sept. 26, 2023 is returnable before Judge Gardephe and shall be filed by: The Plaintiff brings this class-action against the Defendant on both an individual basis and on behalf of a nationwide class against The Defendant for its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Specifically, the Defendant failed to design the website that it owns and operates, olympianlabs.com, to be equally accessible to the visually impaired as it is to sighted individuals. The Defendant's website offers an array of goods and services that consumers can purchase online, including vitamin and food supplements. The Defendant's website also provides information about itself and the products and services it sells. The Plaintiff is legally blind and uses a screen-reader. The Defendant's website is not properly designed and operated to be read by screen-reading software. Because of this, The Plaintiff encountered multiple barriers that denied The Plaintiff access to the website equal to the access sighted individuals enjoy. The Plaintiff could not, for example, learn about the goods and services offered for purchase on The Defendant's website. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's website is a "place of public accommodation" under the ADA and a "place or provider of public accommodation" under the NYCHRL. Olympian Labs manufactures and sells nutritional and natural health supplementary products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/410ZRPu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 E-mail: Wdownes@mizrahikroub.com The Defendant is represented by: David Stein, Esq. STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP 1441 Broadway Suite 6090 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 308-3444 E-mail: Dstein@steinllp.com OUTDOORSMANS RESALE: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outdoorsmans Resale, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Outdoorsmans Resale, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03516-JMF (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Outdoorsmans -- https://outdoorsmans.com/ -- offers outfitting western hunters with quality optics, packs, and tripods since 1982.[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 OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Overstock.Com Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the consolidated securities class suits in the United States District Court of Utah. On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court of Utah, alleging violations under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same court also naming the Company and the above referenced former executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief. These cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit in December 2019. The Court appointed The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. as lead plaintiff in January 2020. In March 2020, an amended consolidated complaint was filed against the Company, its President, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and, on September 28, 2020, the court granted its motion and entered judgment in its favor. The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint on October 23, 2020. The United States District Court of Utah granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint on January 6, 2021. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 11, 2021. The Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, and on September 20, 2021, the court granted its motion and entered judgment in its favor. On October 18, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the ruling of the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Company is awaiting a ruling from the Tenth Circuit that heard oral argument on the appeal on February 9, 2023. No estimates of the possible losses or range of losses can be made at this time. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this consolidated action. Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Midvale, Utah. PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Court Denies Passman's Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC PASSMAN and ISHMAEL ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-11711 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies: i. Peloton's motion to exclude the expert reports and testimony of J. Michael Dennis and Colin B. Weir; and ii. Named Plaintiffs Passman and Alvarado's motion for class certification. Named Plaintiffs Passman and Alvarado move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying the case as a class action, appointing them as the Class Representatives, and appointing the law firms of Keller Postman LLC, DeCello Levitt LLC, and Ziglar Law Group, LLC, as the Class Counsel. The Defendant moves for an order excluding the expert reports and testimony of Dennis and Weir pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The parties engaged in discovery for the purpose of filing and contesting the present motion for class certification and the related motion to strike. The Named Plaintiffs bring the action against the Defendant alleging violations of New York's consumer fraud statutes, New York General Business Law ("NYGBL") Sections 349 and 350. The Defendant is an exercise equipment and media company that sells stationary bicycles and treadmills online, over the phone, and in showrooms. In addition to selling the Peloton Bike and Peloton Tread (collectively, "Peloton Hardware"), it also sells monthly subscriptions, which allow subscribers to watch live and pre-recorded (or "on-demand") fitness classes through Peloton Hardware's built-in interactive touchscreens. Peloton also sells a digital application that allows users to take classes on non-Peloton Hardware. Passman purchased a Peloton Bike and one-year Peloton Membership directly from Defendant in early 2017. Alvarado purchased a used Peloton Bike with his wife from a friend in January 2019 and purchased a Peloton Membership. The action stems from statements made by the Defendant on its website and other media that it offered subscribers an "ever-growing" or "growing" library of live and on-demand studio classes. The Challenged Statement appeared in only a subset of Peloton's advertisements and did not appear in any television advertisements. In April 2018, while it was making the Challenged Statement, the Defendant received a cease-and-desist letter regarding its alleged copyright infringement of songs appearing in classes in its on-demand class library. In March 2019, several members of the National Music Publishers' Association collectively filed a lawsuit against the Defendant. On March 25, 2019, in response to that lawsuit, the Defendant removed approximately 6,500 on-demand classes from its library, leaving approximately 7,000 classes available to its members. The Named Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of a class defined as "all purchasers of the Peloton Hardware and/or the corresponding Peloton Membership subscription from April 9, 2018 through March 25, 2019 [(the "Class Period")] in the State of New York." As currently pleaded in the Third Amended Complaint, they allege that the Defendant's representation that its library was "ever-growing" was false and misleading, because, at the time it made the Challenged Statement, it knew that it would be removing a large proportion of its on-demand digital library. As a result, each of the putative class members suffered injury caused by the Challenged Statement by overpaying for Peloton Hardware and Peloton Memberships. The case was initiated by complaint in December 2019 by Eric Fishon, Alicia Pearlman, and Patrick Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bringing claims for violations of NYGBL Sections 349 and 350. On Aug. 4, 2020, and pursuant to an unopposed request, the Court ordered the voluntary dismissal of Yang. On Nov. 9, 2020, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the claims of Pearlman -- a Michigan resident -- without prejudice because she lacked statutory standing under the New York statute, but it denied a motion to dismiss Fishon's claims. On Feb. 18, 2022, Named Plaintiffs Passman and Alvarado, previously absent class members, filed the TAC. The Defendant moved to dismiss the TAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the Plaintiffs opposed that motion. On Aug. 11, 2022, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the TAC. On Oct. 17, 2022, the Named Plaintiffs filed this motion to certify the class, supported by the declaration of Alex J. Dravillas, the expert declarations of Dennis and Weir, and a memorandum of law. On Nov. 14, 2022, the Defendant filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion for class certification and its motion to strike the Plaintiff's expert declarations and supporting memoranda of law. On April 12, 2023, Judge Liman heard oral argument on the motions. Judge Liman first considers the Defendant's Daubert motion. The Defendant argues that the opinions of Dennis and Weir are not helpful to the trier of fact, irrelevant, and unreliable. It thus moves to exclude the testimony of Dennis and Weir at the class-certification stage. The Named Plaintiffs counter that the expert testimony of Dennis and Weir is relevant, helpful to the trier of fact, and reliable, and that the issues that the Defendant raises about their testimony go to the weight of the evidence at the merits stage, not the admissibility of the evidence at the class-certification stage. Dennis is Senior Vice President at the National Opinion Research Center, a survey research organization. He conducted a consumer perceptions survey to analyze whether the Defendant's alleged misstatement and omission would be important to consumers. He also conducted a price premium survey, also known as a conjoint survey, to measure the extent to which the market-clearing price for Peloton Bikes and Memberships would have been different in the but-for scenario where Defendant did not use the "ever-growing library" representation in its advertising and marketing. Judge Liman holds that even if the Court were ultimately to conclude that Dennis' model was inconsistent with the Named Plaintiffs' theory of liability, the model nonetheless is relevant at the class-certification stage. Dennis' analysis is helpful in that regard; it permits the Court to address the question of whether the Named Plaintiffs have put forward a workable model for calculating damages and thus to determine whether Named Plaintiffs have carried their burden of establishing predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). Judge Liman, thus, accepts Dennis' testimony regarding his price-premium survey for that purpose. With respect to Weir, the Plaintiffs' damages expert, Judge Liman finds that Weir holds a Master of Business Administration degree from Northeastern University and is the President of Economics and Technology, Inc. Weir worked with Dennis to develop parts of his price-premium survey. He also uses Dennis' survey data and the historical sales of Peloton products to calculate damages. The Defendant argues that Weir's testimony is inadmissible because Weir derives his testimony from Dr. Dennis' flawed analysis and Weir's damages calculations does not assist the trier of facts. Judge Liman rejects both arguments at this stage. He already found that Dennis' testimony will be helpful in its predominance analysis. Because he considers Dennis' testimony, Judge Liman also considers Weir's testimony for the limited purpose of determining whether the Named Plaintiffs have carried their burden of establishing predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). Weir compiled data that the Court would need to conduct this grade-school arithmetic. Thus, Judge Liman will not preclude Weir's testimony on that basis. Having resolved the Daubert motion, Judge Liman then turns to the question of whether a class can be certified. The Defendant challenges the motion, arguing that (1) the Named Plaintiffs are inadequate and atypical class representatives; (2) the Named Plaintiffs have failed to establish that common issues predominate; and (3) proposed class counsel is inadequate. Judge Liman examines each of Rule 23's requirements in turn and concludes that the Named Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of demonstrating that the requirements for class certification have been met. He finds that (i) the parties do not dispute that the numerosity requirements of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied; (ii) questions of both materiality and falsity are common to the class; (iii) the Named Plaintiffs' claims arise from the same course of events and will make similar legal arguments as the other class member; (iv) Alvarado has not demonstrated that he understands this weighty responsibility or that he has the willingness or ability to monitor class counsel; and (v) Passman is an adequate class representative under Rule 23(a)(4). And, because he finds the individual issues predominate over common ones, Judge Liman concludes that Named the Plaintiffs have not established that the purported class satisfies the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). For these reasons, Judge Liman denies (i) the Defendant's motion to strike and (ii) the Named Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Because he finds that the parties' letter motions to seal are consistent with the Court's prior sealing orders, he grants the motions to seal. The Clerk of Court is directed to close Docket Nos. 225, 226, 239, 240, 262. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://rb.gy/il3w2 from Leagle.com. PENUMBRA INC: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Penumbra Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from a labor class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. On April 7, 2023, a former contractor who had been retained by the Company through a third party staffing agency filed a putative class action lawsuit as well as a Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") representative action complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, on behalf of the contractor and similarly situated Company contractors and employees in California, alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, overtime, meal and rest breaks, reimbursement of business expenses, wage statements and records, and other similar allegations. Additionally, on April 10, 2023, a current employee of the Company filed a PAGA representative action complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, on behalf of the employee and similarly situated Company employees in California, alleging similar claims. The complaints seek payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The Company believes the claims lack merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Penumbra is a medical device company headquartered in Alameda, California.[BN] POKE FIDI: Seeks More Time to Oppose Yuwono Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yuwono v. Poke Fidi LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05052-JLR-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a four-week extension to their deadline for filing its opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion for conditional collective certification. The current deadline for the Defendant's opposition is May 3, 2023. The Defendants request an extension until May 31, 2023, to file their opposition to The Plaintiff's motion. And under a revised briefing schedule, the parties propose that the Plaintiffs deadline to file their reply be set for June 14, 2023, with oral argument to be rescheduled for a date convenient for the Court in the second half of June. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VrTAet at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Martin R. West II, Esq. KENNEDYS 570 Lexington Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 252-0004 Facsimile: (212) 832-4920 E-mail: Martin.West@kennedyslaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Meza Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Bertha Meza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 5:23-cv-00091 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00241-MWM-SKB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. The Procter & Gamble Company -- http://www.pginvestor.com/-- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson (Cal. Bar No. 269912) Simon Franzini (Cal. Bar No. 287631) DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley M. Simonsen 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 332-4782 Fax: (424) 332-4749 Email: asimonsen@cov.com - and - Dillon H. Grimm Henry Ben-Heng Liu COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 10th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 662-5057 Fax: (202) 662-6291 Email: dgrimm@cov.com hliu@cov.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Ct. Won't Modify Class Definition in Volino ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINICK VOLINO et al., v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06243-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order denying the Plaintiffs request to modify the Class definition set forth in its March 16, 2023, Opinion and Order granting class certification. The Court construes the Plaintiffs' pre-motion letter as a motion for modification pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1), or, in the alternative, a motion for reconsideration. The Plaintiff's motion does not identify "an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Progressive Casualty provides personal, automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LUrrcA at no extra charge.[CC] RENA WARE INTERNATIONAL: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rena Ware International, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rena Ware International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03600 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rena Ware International, Inc. -- https://www.renaware.com/ -- manufactures cookware. The Company offers products including skillets, cacerola, presure cookers, roaster, induction cookers, air filters, cutlery, and juice extractors.[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 RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the Company continues to defend the consolidated Sherman Act class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Company, successor in interest, ("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Sandra Munster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. These complaints have been consolidated and allege that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required to sign. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or herself and other members of the class. On March 24, 2020, the Court granted BKC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. On April 27, 2020, BKC filed a motion opposing the motion for leave to amend. The court denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend their complaint in August 2020 and the plaintiffs appealed this ruling. In August 2022, the federal appellate court reversed the lower court's decision to dismiss the case and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings. While the Company currently believes these claims are without merit, it is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any. Restaurant Brands International, Inc. is a fast food restaurant company based in Oakville, Canada. REVENTICS LLC: Loeb Files Suit in D. Colorado --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reventics LLC, et al. The case is styled as Roger Loeb, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reventics LLC, Regional One Health, Case No. 1:23-cv-01083 (D. Colo., April 28, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Reventics -- https://reventics.com/ -- delivers Provider Engagement Solutions that enhance physician reimbursement and compliance while improving clinical quality measures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber Love Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Fax: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law ROCKWELL COLLINS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 24 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL ALVARADO, an individual, and on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC., a Corporation; AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC., a Corporation; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00400-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge e John F. Walter entered an order on joint stipulation to continue the Plaintiff's class certification motion deadline as follows: 1. The May 24, 2023, deadline on the Plaintiff's class certification motion is continued for 90-days, to August 22, 2023. 2. All other deadlines shall remain unchanged. 3. The single continuance and all other pre-trial and trial deadlines are summarized below: -- Sept. 11, 2023 [unchanged] Settlement Conference / Mediation Deadline -- Sept. 15, 2023 [unchanged] Deadline to File Joint Report re Settlement Conference / Mediation -- Dec. 22, 2023 [unchanged] Discovery Cutoff -- May 24, 2023 Deadline for Class Certification -- Aug. 22, 2023 Motion Filing -- Jan. 22, 2024 [unchanged] Last Day to Hear Motions -- Feb. 28, 2024 [unchanged] Deadline to Submit Pre-Trial Conf. Rockwell Collins is a manufacturer and supplier of aviation and integrated solutions for both commercial and government applications. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ASSjne at no extra charge.[CC] SAN JOSE, CA: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of April 7 Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAACP OF SAN JOSE/SILICON VALLEY, et al., v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-01705-PJH (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's April 7, 2023 Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of their injunctive class. In the April 7, 2023, Order, the Court denied certification of the injunctive relief class for two reasons: 1) lack of specificity about the type of injunctive relief sought; and 2) failure to seek injunctive relief against the proper party, i.e. only command personnel. San Jose is a large city surrounded by rolling hills in Silicon Valley, a major technology hub in California's Bay Area. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LSVHET at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Lederman, Esq. RACHEL LEDERMAN & ALEXSIS C. BEACH, ATTORNEYS San Francisco, CA 94140-0339 Telephone: (415) 282-9300 E-mail: rachel@sfbla.com - and - Tifanei Ressl-Moyer, Esq. LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 131 Steuart Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-9444 E-mail: tresslmoyer@lccrsf.org - and - R. Michael Flynn, Esq. FLYNN LAW OFFICE 1720 Broadway, Ste 430 Oakland CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 893-3226 E-mail: michael@flo-law.com - and - James B. Chanin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. CHANIN 3050 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 Telephone: (510) 848-4752, Ext. 2 E-mail: jbcofc@aol.com - and - Chris Johnson, Esq. Alicia J. Donahue, Esq. Tammy B. Webb, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 E-mail: cjohnson@shb.com adonahue@shb.com - and - Mitchell Engel, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 E-mail: mengel@shb.com SAVAGE SERVICES: Vargas Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------ Manuel Pardo Vargas, individually, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. SAVAGE SERVICES CORPORATION, a Utah corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 23LBCV00782 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2023), is brought seeks penalties under Labor Code 2698, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees and for the Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: failure to accurately pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages failure to provide meal periods before the end of the fifth hour worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period before the end of the fifth hour worked; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; failing to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ; and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; knowingly and intentionally failing to maintain accurate and complete records; and failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a chauffeur at Defendants' Wilmington, California location in Los Angeles County with duties including loading and driving trucks for the sake of Defendants' customers. The Defendant provides material management and transportation services throughout California, including in Los Angeles County, and employs numerous non-exempt employees at each of these locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760 Phone: (310) 312-0299 Fax: (310) 312-0296 SCHWAN'S CONSUMER: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIYA MARTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. SCHWAN'S CONSUMER BRANDS, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00469-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Parties Stipulate to extend deadline to file motion for class certification. 1. The Plaintiff shall be relieved of the Rule 23.1 deadline to file a motion to certify the class and supporting memorandum and evidence. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion to certify the class shall be re-set as part of the Court's Final Scheduling Order to be issued following the Report of the Parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). 2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn, without prejudice to its re-filing in accordance with the briefing schedule adopted in the Court’s Final Scheduling Order. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42duQZA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen P. Safranski, Esq. Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq. Heather R. Chang, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: SSafranski@RobinsKaplan.com GKozen@RobinsKaplan.com HChang@RobinsKaplan.com SELECT BRANDS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Select Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03529 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Select Brands -- https://selectbrands.com/ -- designs and sells electric kitchen appliances.[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 SERTA SIMMONS BEDDING: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03534 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC -- https://sertasimmons.com/ -- is the world's leading producer of mattresses and sleep experiences.[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 SHAMROCK FOODS: Bell Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jason Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00012325-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the California Superior Court, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on April 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00779-DMS-MSB. The Complaint purports to state causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class members for: failure to provide meal periods pursuant to Cal. Labor Code; failure to provide rest breaks pursuant to Cal. Labor Code; failure to pay all wages pursuant to Cal. Labor Code; failure to pay overtime pursuant to Cal. Labor Code; failure to provide accurate wage statements pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code; failure to pay all wages twice a month pursuant to Cal. Labor Code; failure to pay all wages upon termination/resignation pursuant to Cal. Labor Code; and unfair business practices pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew J. Sommer, Esq. CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP 111 West Ocean Blvd., 4th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (415) 268-8894 Facsimile: (415) 268-8889 Email: asommer@connmaciel.com - and - Megan S. Shaked, Esq. CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 268-8882 Facsimile: (415) 268-8889 Email: mshaked@connmaciel.com SPARK PRETTY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spark Pretty, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Spark Pretty, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03229 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SPARK PRETTY -- http://www.sparkpretty.com/-- is a visual lifestyle brand and store by artist and stylist, Amanda Dolan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com SPEEDWAY LLC: Petroski Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sharon Petroski, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SPEEDWAY LLC, Case No. 230302703 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 28, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01628. In her Complaint, Plaintiff claims Speedway violated the Philadelphia Fair Workweek Employment Standards ("Fair Workweek Law"), by allegedly: failing to provide written good faith estimates; failing to provide advance notice of work schedules; failing to pay schedule change premiums ("Predictability Pay"); failing to provide sufficient rest between work shifts; and failing to offer newly available shifts to existing employees before hiring new ones. She also alleges that she was wrongfully terminated in violation of the Law for engaging in activity protected by the Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jacob Oslick, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 218-5500 Email: joslick@seyfarth.com STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 26, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE HERRING-DANCY, individually and on behalf of all others, v. STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-06034-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Close of Phase I discovery December 22, 2023 2. Motion to join additional parties July 28, 2023 3. Motion to amend pleadings July 28, 2023 4. Motion for Class Certification January 26, 2024 5. Asserting party's expert report(s) October 3, 2023 Defending party's expert report(s) November 3, 2023 Rebuttal report(s) December 1, 2023 Challenges/Daubert motions January 26, 2024 6. Status reports November 7, 2023 Sterling Infosystems provides human resource services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/413yAf2 at no extra charge.[CC] SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Stay on Discovery Dispute in Amin Suit Lifted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NILIMA AMIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00498-JST (LJC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lisa J. Cisneros of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California lifts the stay on the parties' discovery dispute and denies the Plaintiff's requests to set aside deemed admissions and waivers of objections without prejudice. In this putative class action, the parties have a pending discovery dispute. Amin requests that the Court sets aside deemed admissions and her waiver of objections to various discovery requests that the Defendants served on her, and to which she served late responses. After a hearing on the matter, the Court stayed resolution of the dispute to permit the Plaintiff to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Amin filed her Motion to Dismiss by the Court's deadline. The Court has set a hearing on the motion to dismiss for July 27, 2023, after the deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and other related deadlines. Considering the posture of the case and the Plaintiff's desire to dismiss the action, Judge Cisneros lifts the stay on the parties' discovery dispute and denies the Plaintiff's requests to set aside deemed admissions and waivers of objections without prejudice. The parties may refile their joint discovery letter, or a similar letter presenting same dispute, if the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/r4fnu from Leagle.com. SUGAR COOKIES INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Cookies, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sugar Cookies, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03232 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sugar Cookies -- https://www.sugarcookiesnyc.com/ -- is a luxury lingerie boutique founded in 2008 that specializes in exquisite French lingerie.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com SYNERGY CHC CORP: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Geneva Gonzales, Ruth Martin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Synergy CHC Corp., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV05927 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03245-FMO-MAAto the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Synergy CHC Corp. -- https://synergychc.com/ -- is a consumer health care & beauty company that is in the process of building a portfolio of best-in-class consumer product brands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Scott Silverman, Esq. Bryan J. Weintrop, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-9900 Fax: (310) 229-9901 Email: dsilverman@venable.com bjweintrop@venable.com THERALOGIX LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Theralogix, LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Theralogix, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03538 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Theralogix -- https://theralogix.com/ -- offers vitamins & supplements that are high-quality, research-based & NSF certified.[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 TIVITY HEALTH: Class Cert Status Conference Set for May 22 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT STROUGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order setting status conference on Plaintiff's motion for revised order on his motion for class certification on May 22, 2023. Tivity is a healthcare service provider that offers nutrition, fitness and social connection solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NF1mj9 at no extra charge.[CC] TORRANCE REFINING: White Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Jacqueline White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Torrance Refining Company LLC, 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV02967 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03216-GW-PVC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. Torrance Refining Company LLC -- https://torrancerefinery.com/ -- is a refinery industry. The Company produces a range of products including distillate and residual fuel oils, gasoline, kerosene, and lubricants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Gary T. Lafayette, Esq. George Martin Velez, Esq. LAFAYETTE AND KUMAGAI LLP 1300 Clay Street Suite 810 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 357-4600 Fax: (415) 357-4605 Email: glafayette@lkclaw.com mvelez@lkclaw.com TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Clark Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHERYL CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-16756 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of Clark's complaint for failure to state a claim and its denial of her motion for leave to amend her complaint. For 26 years, Clark's mother, Delaine Stowell, paid a monthly premium to the JC Penney Corp. for life insurance coverage. The JC Penney Life Insurance Co. -- now, the Transamerica Life Insurance Co. -- issued and delivered the policy to the JC Penney Corp. in Illinois. Stowell received a certificate of insurance, as required under the Policy, which identified her as the "insured" and the JC Penney Corp. as the "policyholder." In 2018, she missed a payment and shortly thereafter passed away. After Transamerica initially denied Clark's claim for benefits, she filed a class action complaint, alleging violations of Cal. Ins. Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72, which require, among other things, a 60-day grace period and notice before the termination of an insurance policy issued or delivered in California for nonpayment of a premium. Clark appeals the district court's dismissal of her complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and its denial of her motion for leave to amend her complaint. The Ninth Circuit affirms, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Clark's complaint. It explains that the California statutes only apply to policies issued or delivered in California. There is no dispute that the Policy was issued and delivered in Illinois and the Certificate was delivered in California. The sole question is whether the Certificate is part of the Policy or merely reflects evidence of insurance. Under federal and California precedent, a certificate is part of a policy -- i.e., the contract of insurance -- when it contains terms and conditions that differ from the master policy. This precedent is consistent with the California Insurance Code, under which a certificate that does not "amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by" an insurance policy is only "evidence of insurance." In the case, the Ninth Circuit points out that the Certificate is not part of the Policy because the Certificate, on its face, does not alter or add to substantive terms of the Policy. Indeed, the Certificate issued to Stowell reflects that it is "not part of the policy but evidence of the insurance provided under the policy" and that "the policy and any attachments are the entire contract of insurance." Because any amendment would be futile, the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err in denying Clark's motion for leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://rb.gy/p5j1b from Leagle.com. TWITTER INC: Rodriguez's Individual Claims Sent to Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07222-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Twitter and Magnit, LLC's motion an order compelling Rodriguez's individual claims to arbitration pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act. Plaintiff Rodriguez sued Defendants Twitter and Magnit, LLC, f/k/a PRO Unlimited, Inc., on behalf of himself and a putative class of other employees who were employed by Twitter through Magnit, a payroll administration company. He alleges that recent layoffs by Twitter violated federal and state laws. He also seeks to recover civil penalties on behalf of California for California Labor Code violations suffered by himself and other employees under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code Section 2698 et seq. In November 2021, as a condition of his employment with Magnit, Rodriguez signed an arbitration agreement. The agreement states that it is governed by the FAA. It commits the parties to the resolution by binding arbitration of all claims or causes of action that Rodriguez may have against Magnit or any of its clients for whom he performed work. The agreement includes a third-party beneficiary clause that explicitly states that it is intended to also inure to the benefit of Magnit's clients for whom Rodriguez performed work to the extent an employment dispute arises between Rodriguez and such client and involves claims covered by the Agreement. Twitter is a client of Magnit and Rodriguez performed work for Twitter that was "indistinguishable" from the work done by employees who were employed directly by Twitter. Twitter and Magnit ask for an order compelling Rodriguez's individual claims to arbitration pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement and the FAA. Rodriguez filed oppositions. Judge Donato holds that Rodriguez cites no authority, binding on the Court, for the proposition that he may establish a waiver under the circumstances. Turning to the arbitration agreement itself, Judge Donato finds that Rodriguez does not present any arguments pertaining to his non-PAGA individual claims, which are ordered to arbitration, or his putative class claims, which he has waived the ability to pursue through his arbitration agreement. The threshold question raised by Rodriguez's objections is whether the arbitration agreement excludes PAGA claims from the scope of covered claims. Judge Donato holds that Rodriguez's PAGA claims are plainly within the scope of covered claims. Because compelling the representative portion of Rodriguez's PAGA claim to arbitration would be tantamount to waiver, the parties converge on the same conclusion: Rodriguez's representative PAGA claims cannot be compelled to arbitration. The procedural fate of Rodriguez's representative PAGA claims is the remaining point of contention. Twitter and Magnit say that once Rodriguez's individual PAGA claims are sent to arbitration, the representative claims should be dismissed for lack of statutory standing. Rodriguez suggests that California courts have already had the last word and also notes that this precise issue has been teed up before the California Supreme Court in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, No. S274671, where it has been fully briefed. Considering these developments, Judge Donato holds that prudence and federalism counsel in favor of waiting on a decision in Adolph. A decision by the California Supreme Court, one way or the other, will bring clarity to the situation. Consequently, Rodriguez's representative PAGA claims are stayed pending the disposition in Adolph. Further proceedings will be ordered as circumstances warrant. In view of the foregoing, the claims of Rodriguez are ordered to arbitration on an individual basis, as stated in James Donato's order. Rodriguez's sole remaining representative PAGA claims are stayed pending further order. The parties are directed to provide a joint status report every 90 days on Adolph. A full-text copy of the Court's April 28, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/plje9 from Leagle.com. TWITTER INC: Seeks to Strike Class Action Claims & Allegations -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD JACKSON, JULIE BRIGGS, and GREGG BUCHWALTER, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TWITTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-09438-AB-MAA (C.D. Cal.), Twitter moves the Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D), to strike the Plaintiffs' class action claims and allegations. Specifically, Twitter moves for an order striking the class action claims and allegations from the Complaint, including but not limited to the following: 1. The "Class Action Allegations" section, starting at paragraph 83 and ending at paragraph 95; 2. All paragraphs seeking to recover on behalf of the putative class, including paragraphs 38, 60, 382, 384-391, 393, 397-401, and 404; 3. All paragraphs referencing the "Putative Class" or the "Class," including paragraphs 16, 30, 31, 34-37, 47, 57, 58, and 79; 4. Prayer for relief Paragraphs 1-6. First, the Plaintiffs allege that Twitter, along with defendants Google, LLC, Alphabet, Inc., and YouTube, Inc., engaged in a censorship scheme in which they labeled certain content as "dis-information," "misinformation, " and/or "mal-information, " and then suppressed or censored such content in order to "affect the election's outcome in favor of the Democrats. " Specifically, the Internet Platform the Defendants allegedly censored posts related to the "Hunter Biden laptop story, " the lab-leak theory of COVID-19's origin, the efficacy of mask mandates and COVID-19 lockdowns, and the security of voting by mail so that Democratic viewpoints were predominantly available on these topics. The Plaintiffs allege that this censorship infringed on their rights to "freedom of expression" and freedom "to be exposed to free expression on such platforms." The Plaintiffs contend that the Internet Platform the Defendants were able to perpetrate this alleged censorship by terminating speakers' accounts, imposing warnings about disfavored speech, "shadow banning" speakers, "demonetizing" content, adjusting algorithms to suppress speakers, placing warning labels on content, and otherwise suppressing or censoring content. The Defendants include GOOGLE, LLC, a limited liability company; ALPHABET, INC., a Delaware corporation; META PLATFORMS, INC., a corporation doing business as "META" and "FACEBOOK, INC. "; INSTAGRAM, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON INC., a Delaware corporation; YOUTUBE INC., a Delaware corporation; APPLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS; NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION; DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, a corporation doing business nationwide as, "THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE" OR "DNC, " Twitter was an American social media company based in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vwo92r at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Tanya L. Greene, Esq. Jonathan Y. Ellis, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3103 Telephone: (213) 457-9879 Facsimile: (213 457-9899 E-mail: tgreene@mcguirewoods.com jellis@mcguirewoods.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Deadline to File Scheduling Statement Extended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, RH, and CJ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, and MULTIPLAN, INC., a New York Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation to extend deadline to file scheduling statement for remainder of Action. The Court's order denying motion for class certification ordered that the parties shall meet and confer regarding a scheduling for the remainder of the action and file a statement as appropriate no later than April 28, 2023. The parties have begun conferring about a schedule for the remainder of the action but require more time to discuss. Pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned counsel of record that the time for the parties to meet and confer regarding a scheduling for the remainder of the action and to file a statement is extended up to and including May 5, 2023. United Healthcare offers healthcare products and insurance services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VBYllO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew M. Lavin, Esq. Aaron R. Modiano, Esq. ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 350S Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 677-4030 Facsimile: (202) 677-4031 E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com aaron.modiano@agg.com - and - David M. Lilienstein, Esq. Katie J. Spielman, Esq. DL LAW GROUP 345 Franklin St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 678-5050 Facsimile: (415) 358-8484 E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com katie@dllawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Geoffrey M. Sigler, Esq. GIBSON DUNN CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 E-mail: gsigler@gibsondunn.com - and - Brittany Holt Alexander, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 400 Convention Street, Suite 1100 Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 376-0279 E-mail: brittany.alexander@phelps.com VELODYNE LIDAR: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Submit Smith Transcript ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEYSAM MORADPOUR, et al., v. VELODYNE LIDAR, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01486-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order on Lead Plaintiffs Diane and William P. Smith stipulate administrative motion for leave to supplement the record regarding their notice of motion and motion for class certification. The Defendants agreed to stipulate to the relief sought by this filing so long as the Plaintiffs did not make any substantive argument herein, including apparently quoting Mrs. Smith's deposition, and attached the parties' communications about this filing. Velodyne provides real-time 3D vision for autonomous systems worldwide. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3APYsRd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. Alexander L. Burns, Esq. James T. Fetter, Esq. Alexandra Pratt, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP 580 California Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 459-6900 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com james.fetter@ksfcounsel.com alexandra.pratt@ksfcounsel.com VI-JON LLC: Loughlin Seeks Leave to File Unredacted Memorandum -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA LOUGHLIN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. VI-JON, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-11555-MLW (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her leave to file an unredacted version of her Memorandum of Law in Support of her Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel and certain exhibits. This case is a putative class action brought pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A related to the Defendant's Representations on the labels of its hand sanitizer products. During discovery in this action, the Defendant produced documents that it designated as "Confidential" and/or "Confidential – Attorney's Eyes Only" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order. Certain documents and information designated by the Defendant as "Confidential" and/or "Confidential – Attorney's Eyes Only" is relevant to the issues presented in the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests leave to file her Memorandum and certain of the Exhibits referenced therein and attached to the Spector Declaration under seal. The Plaintiff seeks to file under seal only those portions of the Memorandum and those documents that address or attach information that The Defendant has designated as "Confidential" and/or "Confidential – Attorney's Eyes Only." The Defendant declined to remove the confidentiality designations. The Plaintiff requested that the Defendant consent to the instant Motion, and The Defendant provided its consent. Vi-Jon manufactures and retails beauty care & healthcare products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/410XhZO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward L. Manchur, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD L. MANCHUR, P.C. Peabody, MA 01960 Telephone: (978) 333-1013 E-mail: manchurlaw@gmail.com - and - Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 1501 San Elijo Hills Road South, Suite 104-212 San Marcos, CA 92078 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com VIDA LONGEVITY: $1.4MM Class Settlement in O'Hern Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIMOTHY O'HERN, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. VIDA LONGEVITY FUND, LP, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 21-402-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware grants: a. the Plaintiffs' uncontested motion for final approval of class action settlement and plan of allocation; and b. the motion of Rosca Scarlato LLC for an award of attorneys' fees, payment of expenses, and for incentive awards. Plaintiffs Timothy O'Hern, Semyon Rodkin, and Dominic Cardinale bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals against the Vida Longevity Fund, LP ("VLF" or the "Fund"), an open-ended investment fund that uses money raised from investors to purchase life settlements. On March 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against VLF and Defendants Vida Management I, LLC; Capital Management, LLC; Vida Capital, Inc.; and Jeffrey R. Serra alleging that VLF misled investors by attributing its declining performance to one-time or extrinsic events. The Plaintiffs invested in the VLF, which bought life insurance policies at a discount with the goal of producing annualized returns of 8-12% and a return of capital with low volatility The VLF achieved the targeted rate of return from its inception though 2017, but its performance began to decline in 2018. The class action complaint alleges that the VLF misled investors by attributing its deteriorating performance to one-time or extrinsic events. At the close of the third quarter in 2020, the VLF disclosed that its losses were caused by weaknesses in its internal processes and procedures used to evaluate and price the VLF's investments. The Plaintiffs allege that the failure to disclose these weaknesses and the material conflicts of interests of its founder, Jeffrey Serra, amounted to violations of the Texas Securities Act. After the Plaintiffs filed this action on March 19, 2021, the VLF's financial performance began to improve, generating positive returns under new owners and management. The parties engaged in mediation on Oct. 14, 2021 and they reached an agreement in principle on Jan. 5, 2022. On July 8, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation setting forth the negotiated terms of the proposed settlement. The proposed settlement requires the Defendants to pay $1.4 million to satisfy the Plaintiffs' claims in exchange for a release of class claims. The stipulation allowed the Plaintiffs to conduct due diligence discovery before submitting the proposed settlement to the court for final approval. The Plaintiffs reviewed an extensive number of documents produced by the Defendants during discovery and, on Sept. 12, 2022, informed the Defendants that they intended to proceed with the settlement. On Nov. 21, 2022, the court preliminarily certified the settlement class and granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement. The record before the Court confirms that the Plaintiffs have fully complied with the Court's order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement. The Court-appointed claims administrator, Strategic Claims Services ("SCS") disseminated the Postcard Notice to 5,765 prospective class members, and the Summary Notice was published via Globe Newswire on the internet on Jan. 30, 2023. A small percentage of the Postcard Notices were returned as undeliverable, and SCS mailed Postcard Notices to forwarding addresses when such addresses were available. SCS estimates that approximately 94% of the class received the Postcard Notice. To date, SCS has not received any objections or requests for exclusion from the class. Likewise, no prospective class member has objected to the request for attorneys' fees or expenses. The net settlement amount, after deduction of taxes, notice and administrative expenses, and attorneys' fees and expenses from the allocated amount of $1.4 million, is to be distributed to all class members on a pro rata basis. The settlement agreement provides that Plaintiffs' counsel will apply for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 30% of the settlement amount, and the amount of expenses paid or incurred will not exceed $50,000. Incentive awards for the Plaintiffs will not exceed $30,000 total, or $10,000 per Plaintiff. Having determined that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23 requirements to obtain class certification, Judge Fallon certifies the Plaintiffs' proposed class for purposes of final settlement approval. Having certified the proposed class action under Rule 23, Judge Fallon evaluates the fairness of the class action settlement under Rule 23(e). She finds that final approval of the settlement is proper. Therefore, she approves the proposed settlement in full. The Class Counsel moves for an award of: (1) attorneys' fees in the amount of 30% of the $1.4 million settlement; (2) payment of litigation expenses incurred in prosecuting and settling the litigation, in the amount of $15,837.60; and (3) incentive awards to Plaintiffs in the amount of $10,000 each, or $30,000 in the aggregate, for the time and expenses they incurred in representing the settlement class. Judge Fallon grants the motion. She finds that (i) the requested fee of 30% is reasonable and falls within the typical range of fee awards in securities class action settlements such as this one; (ii) the Class Counsel will receive only 83% of what they would have received at the regular billing rates; and (iii) the Class Counsel's expenses are reasonable. Accordingly, she awards attorneys' fees, expenses, and for incentive awards. Based on the foregoing, the action is dismissed with prejudice. Appropriate Orders will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://rb.gy/u6zgm from Leagle.com. VIDA SHOES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vida Shoes International, Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Vida Shoes International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03541 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vida Shoes International -- http://www.vidagroup.com/-- has been committed to becoming a global leader in the footwear industry.[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 WELLS FARGO: Bid to Compel Discovery Denied in Henzel Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henzel v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 2:22-cv-00529-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Koppe entered an order that the motion to compel discovery is denied and the motion to quash is granted as to former plaintiffs Philomena Moloney, Stanley Ann Dowdy, PMM3, Fortress Protection LLC, Elizabeth Lewis, California Cabinet Distributors Inc., and Better Hitting, Inc. None of the former plaintiffs is listed as a witness. The Plaintiffs have not indicated an intent to use information gained from the former plaintiffs in later stages of the case. Moreover, Wells Fargo did not identify discovery from the former plaintiffs as being sought in the parties' discovery plan. In short, Wells Fargo's arguments on this front amount to speculation, which falls well short of meeting its burden to show the discovery is necessary. The former plaintiffs filed a response and a counter-motion to quash the subpoenas. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. The case arises out of allegations that Matthew Beasley and Jeffrey Judd operated a largescale Ponzi scheme through which they duped investors to pay them money purportedly used for advance loans to plaintiffs awaiting payments on personal injury settlements. Those allegations initially generated civil lawsuits against the alleged schemers, but the Plaintiffs eventually turned their attention to the Defendant Wells Fargo, with whom hundreds of millions of dollars from the scheme were allegedly deposited. Wells Fargo offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ASTLWI at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss Claims in Forbearance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE WELLS FARGO FORBEARANCE LITIGATION, Case No. 20-cv-06009-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss 11 of the 14 claims in the third amended complaint. The action consolidated several related cases alleging that Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo & Co. (together, Wells Fargo) put residential mortgage holders into forbearance without their knowledge or consent during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which runs for over 110 pages and alleges 14 claims ranging from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1601, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. Section 2601, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, to a variety of state statutory and common law claims. The named plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and six state classes of Wells Fargo customers. Although the Plaintiffs are on a third amended complaint, it is the first occasion on which the Court has been asked to determine the plausibility of the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Motions to dismiss prior iterations of the complaint were terminated or withdrawn without decision after consolidation and other events. Wells Fargo asks to dismiss 11 of the 14 claims in the TAC. First, Judge Donato dismisses the RICO claim with leave to amend. He finds that the TAC does not plausibly allege an enterprise distinct from Wells Fargo acting in its own business capacity. The allegations do not plausibly establish that Black Knight was part of a RICO enterprise with Wells Fargo. They establish only that Black Knight engaged in garden-variety business activities pursuant to a contract with Wells Fargo. Overall, the RICO enterprise allegations are not enough to move forward. The Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to amend the allegations. Next, Judge Donato dismisses the claims for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. He finds that the TAC is unduly vague with respect to the state law that might apply, a deficiency aggravated by the fact that the named Plaintiffs are citizens of six different states, and Wells Fargo is said to be a South Dakota business entity with a principal place of business in California. The Plaintiffs focused on California and Florida law, while trying to leave the door open with a reference to "all of the relevant jurisdictions." This is no way to litigate the claims of a nationwide class and does not give Wells Fargo fair notice of the claims against it. Judge Donato then denies the request to dismiss the TILA claim. He finds that at pleadings stage, there are enough specific factual allegations to support a plausible inference that Wells Fargo repurchased, and at some point, owned, at least some of the named Plaintiffs' loans. The TAC also plausibly alleges that Wells Fargo failed to timely credit the Plaintiffs' mortgage payments. Judge Donato also dismisses the RESPA claims. To the extent the Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo violated this "timing of notice" requirement, he dismisses the claim with leave to amend. The TAC does not establish that any named Plaintiff has standing to bring this claim. And because the Plaintiffs did not address Wells Fargo's arguments that there is no private right of action to enforce Regulation X requirements in their opposition, the claim under 12 C.F.R. Section 1024.38 is dismissed with prejudice. Judge Donato denies dismissal for the California UCL claim. He holds that the Plaintiffs have successfully alleged a violation of the unlawful prong predicated on their plausible TILA claim. That is enough under the UCL. Finally, Wells Fargo says that the Plaintiffs' claims under state consumer protection laws are preempted by the FCRA. Judge Donato holds that the state law claims are preempted to the extent they regulate credit reporting but may go forward to the extent they could be construed as unrelated to credit reporting. Considering the foregoing, the RICO, unjust enrichment, and implied covenant claims are dismissed with leave to amend. The RESPA claim under 12 C.F.R. Section 1024.41 is dismissed with leave to amend, and the claim under 12 C.F.R. Section 1024.38 is dismissed with prejudice. Dismissal is denied for the TILA and California UCL claims. Counts 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are dismissed with prejudice to the extent they relate to credit reporting. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint consistent with the Order by May 19, 2023. No new claims or parties may be added without the Court's prior consent. A failure to meet the deadline will result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims dismissed in the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/342pj from Leagle.com. WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Consumidores Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su Defensa money transfers class suit. In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No. 19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign exchange rates. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a time period. In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class members has been completed, and the case is in the evidentiary stage. Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend itself vigorously. The Western Union Company is an American worldwide financial services and communications company, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Until it discontinued the service in 2006, Western Union was the leading American company in the business of transmitting telegrams.[CC] WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Financial Privacy Act Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Financial Privacy and Financial Information Privacy Act class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In December 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed against several money transfer business defendants, including the Western Union Co., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that these defendants violated the federal Right to Financial Privacy Act and California's Financial Information Privacy Act. The United States Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are also named as defendants. The operative complaint alleges that the defendants violated plaintiffs' financial privacy rights by sharing private financial information with law enforcement agencies through a program coordinated by the Transaction Record Analysis Center. On January 24, 2023, an amended complaint was filed naming Western Union Financial Services, Inc. ("WUFSI") as a defendant in place of The Western Union Company. Due to the preliminary stage of this matter, the ultimate outcome and any potential financial impact to the Company cannot be reasonably determined at this time. WUFSI intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. The Western Union Company is an American worldwide financial services and communications company, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Until it discontinued the service in 2006, Western Union was the leading American company in the business of transmitting telegrams.[CC] ********* 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 ***