/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230519.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 19, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 101
Headlines
ALBERTSONS COS: Medina Sues Over Employees' Unprotected Info
ALLIED CONCRETE: Ramos Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Wages
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Agrees to Settle Shareholders Class Action Suit
AMD FOOD: Sends Unsolicited Texts to Consumers, Drummond Claims
AON INVESTMENTS: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over 401(K) Redesign
ARDELYX INC: Sept. 14 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint
BARNARD COLLEGE: Faces Coccaro Suit Over Tuition Fee Adjustments
BERRY CORP: Continues to Defend Torres Securities Class Suit
BEYOND MEAT: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 10
BIOTIGEN LLC: Faces Thom Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
BLACKSTONE INC: Class Suit Over Genetic Info Privacy Dismissed
BODY & POLE: Johnson, et al., Seek Final Nod of Class Settlement
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Price Fixing Class Action Suit
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Settles Class Suit Over Mortgage Charges for $3M
CANOPY GROWTH: May Face Class Action Suit From Investors
CHARLOTTE TILBURY: Court Remands BIPA Class Action to State Court
CHURCH MUTUAL: GCH Seeks to Certify Policyholder Class
CLARK AND WHITE: Zarate Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
CLEVELAND ATKINSON: Myrick Seeks to Modify Amended Case Mng't Order
CME GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Breach-Related Class Suit
COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 23, 2024
CONDUENT INC: Employees' Final Settlement Hearing Set for May 24
CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Brittingham Files Renewed Bid for Class Cert.
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Melucci Suit Settlement for Final Court Nod
CORE SCIENTIFIC: Faces Mei Peng Shareholder Suit in Texas Court
CREDIT BUREAU: Kang Seeks Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement
EDGIO INC: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bid Set June 26
ENOVIX: Discovery Funds, Gary Kung Appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs
EXELON CORP: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Racketeering Class Suit
EXELON CORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Illinois Class Suit
EXELON CORP: Ruling on Dismissal Bid Expected June 9
FARMERS GROUP INC: Lim Suit Removed to C.D. California
FCA US: Class Settlement in Victorino Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
FPI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Suit Alleges
G.W. PHILLIPS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Barron Alleges
GENESCO INC: Sends Unsolicited Texts to Consumers, Powell Claims
GRIECO FORD: Velez Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Fails to Protect Private Info, Pereira Claims
HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Underpays Patient Care Technicians, Suit Says
HAVAR INC: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Warner Suit Says
HEIDI HEDBERG: Parties Seek to Certify Two Plaintiff Classes
HUMANA INC: Plan Participant Class Certification Sought in Moore
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Vehicles' Peeling Paint
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 10
ICON BURGER: Zaharia Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
IK MULTIMEDIA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Matzura
JC USA INC: Pirozzi Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
JOSEPH WILLIFORD: Judge Recommends Denial of Hall Class Cert Bid
JPMORGAN CHASE: Wants Judge to Deny Class Status to Epstein Accuser
KBR TECHNICAL: Mendoza Sues Over Instrument Technicians' Unpaid OT
KIRKLAND'S INC: Faces Data Breach Suit in Georgia Court
KIRKLAND'S INC: Faces Sicard Labor Suit in New York Court
KNOX COUNTY, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Benson
KRAFT HEINZ: Settles Securities Class Action for $450 Million
KROGER CO: Eggs' Farm Fresh Label "Misleading," Long Suit Says
KURA SUSHI: Settles Gomes Labor Suit in California Court
LA RUTA: Faces Ramirez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
LAZER SPOT: Has Until May 24 to Oppose Conditional Class Cert Bid
LAZER SPOT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Brief
LEGACY HEALTH: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 15, 2024
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Amick Suit Seeks Class Certification
LOLA & SOTO: Drummond Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
M & MZ INC: Villalobos Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
M&T BANK: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for June 1
MAHARAJA PALACE: Faces Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MATERION CORP: Hearing on Final Settlement OK in Lucyk Set for July
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Maxar Class Suit Agreement for Court Approval
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: McCurdy Class Suit Agreement for Court Approval
META PLATFORMS: Butler County Vo-Tech School to Join Class Action
MOBILE FIDELITY: Judge Rebuffs Complaints Over Suit Settlement
MY PILLOW: Bid to Exclude Grieser Opinion Tossed in Deutsch
NATURES PATH: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 1, 2024
NEW YORK, NY: Wins Bids for Judgment in Uviles Overdetention Suit
NEW YORK: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
NEW YORK: Courts OKs Caballero Class Certification Bid
NOBULL LLC: Faces Mueller Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Mislabels Haircare Products, Smith Says
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Court OK's Settlement in Securities Class Suit
ONE BROOKLYN: Sutherland Sues Over Illegal Access of Personal Info
OUR LADY OF THE LAKE: Faces Class Suit Over 2022 Data Breach
OUTCO INC: Andrews Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PALMCO ENERGY: Brown Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Pasman Bid for Class Certification Tossed
PETER THOMAS: Faces Munoz Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Settlement Requires Repair, Install Curb Ramps
PLURALSIGHT INC: Must Oppose IPRS Class Cert Bid by Sept. 8
PLURALSIGHT INC: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines
PROPARK AMERICA: Webber Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid Wages
RALPH LAUREN: S.D. New York Tosses Miramontes Consumer Fraud Suit
REALPAGE INC: Artificially Raised Rental Prices, Blosser Alleges
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Badalamenti Class Suit
SANTA CLARA: Skurauskis Sues Over Illegal Access of Personal Info
SAVE MART: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due March 22, 2024
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Faces Cabo Suit Over Crypto Currency Scheme
SKILL ZONE: Underpays Customer Service Representatives, Mathis Says
SOTERA HEALTH: Continues to Defend Michigan Fund Class Suit
SPACE COAST: Gonzalez Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
SPEAR WILDERMAN: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Pennsylvania
STEM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 11
TANDEM DIABETES: Continues to Defend Deluna Consolidated Class Suit
TCHDALLAS2 LLC: Underpays Card Dealers, Meine Suit Alleges
TD BANK: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Refused to Give Refunds, Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Trial of Class Suit in Australia Set for 2024
UDEMY INC: Final Approval of Williams Settlement Pending
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Cantinieri Class Suit
VERISK ANALYTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Ahringer Class Claims
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Motion to Dismiss Tirado Labor Suit Denied
VICTORIA: Offers $5M Settlement in Public Housing Residents' Suit
VODAFONE GROUP: May Face Consumers' Class Suit Over Price Increase
YF FC OPERATIONS: Faces Pertusiello Suit Over Spam Text Messages
ZILLOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 187 Pending Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Defends Numerous Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp Has 14,343 Unresolved Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Has $227MM Net Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends 577 New Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 17,237 Pending PI Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Receives Exposure Claims
*********
ALBERTSONS COS: Medina Sues Over Employees' Unprotected Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Day of BoiseDev reports that after news broke that someone
hacked into Albertsons Companies and stole the data of 33,000
employees - one of those employees has moved to set up a class
action lawsuit.
As BoiseDev reported last month, the company said someone got past
security protocols and lifted a trove of data, which contained
information like driver's license numbers, social security numbers,
names, and more.
Laura Medina, who worked for Albertsons in two stints - first from
2004 through 2006, and again from 2013-2014, sued in federal court
in Deleware on May 1st. Albertsons, like many companies, is
incorporated in Deleware, but based in Boise.
"(Medina) brings this class action against Albertsons for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard plaintiff's and other
similarly situated current and former employees… personally
identifying information from hackers," the complaint reads.
The complaint cited BoiseDev's reporting on the breach.
Medina's complaint says that Albertsons waited nearly five months
to let employees know about the breach and that the data is a "gold
mine" for data thieves, and that affected employees will "remain at
risk" for "personal, social and financial harm" for the rest of
their lives.
The complaint said Albertsons didn't assure employees that copies
of the data have been retrieved or destroyed, or that the company
"has adequately enhanced its data security practices to avoid a
similar breach of its network in the future."
The complaint also said that, though Albertsons is providing
identity monitoring to employees, the company didn't say it would
provide identity theft insurance, "a critical component of identity
monitoring in most instances."
Albertsons employs roughly 290,000 people. It's unclear what subset
of 33,000 employees were impacted by the breach. Albertsons did not
respond to our request for comment late last month.
Albertsons hopes to be acquired by rival Kroger, in a deal that the
two companies say would be done early next year, if they can secure
the required approvals. [GN]
ALLIED CONCRETE: Ramos Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED CONCRETE INDUSTRIES INC., ALLIED
CONCRETE STRUCTURES, INC., CONCRETE STRUCTURES, INC., OPORTO
CONCRETE INC., AMERICO MAGALHAES, and MANUEL MAGALHAES, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03366 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked as a construction worker for the Defendants
from March 2017 until December 2020.
Allied Concrete Industries Inc. is a construction firm, with its
principal place of business at 960 Johnson Ave., Ronkonkoma, New
York.
Allied Concrete Structures Inc. is a construction firm, with its
principal place of business at 960 Johnson Ave., Ronkonkoma, New
York.
Concrete Structures Inc. is a construction firm, with its principal
place of business at 960 Johnson Ave., Ronkonkoma, New York.
Oporto Concrete Inc. is a construction firm, with its principal
place of business at 2380 Pond Road, Ronkonkoma, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 571-0700
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Agrees to Settle Shareholders Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Wilkins of Baystreet reports that AMC slid on May 8, 2023
morning, after the movie theater chain said it reached an agreement
to settle a shareholder class action against the conversion of AMC
Preferred Equity Units into common company shares, as well as a
reverse stock split. Investors approved the decision in March.
Meantime, the cinema chain attributed its second straight quarter
of positive adjusted EBITDA since the start of the pandemic to
ongoing recovery in the box office.
Economic figures came out May 5, 2023, in which the company lost
$235.5 million versus the year-ago $337.4 million. Per-share loss
also narrowed from 33 cents to 17 cents
Revenue went up 21.5% year-on-year to $954.4 million.
Those revenues grew even though the quarter hadn't yet accounted
for the April opening of The Super Mario Bros. Movie, the year's
biggest film to date with nearly a half-billion dollars in domestic
grosses and more than $1 Billion worldwide, not to mention the
upcoming summer release season.
The figure benefited from a seasonal release schedule, with the
number of releases for Q1 up 35% compared to the same quarter in
2022.
More importantly, Geetha Ranganathan of Bloomberg Intelligence is
confident that movie entertainment will hold up well in the midst
of an economic downturn.
Movie-going tends to be a cheaper form of entertainment. It has
held up very well even during recessionary periods.
Year-to-date, AMC shares are currently up about 45%.
On May 8, 2023 morning, those shares let go of one cent to $5.88.
[GN]
AMD FOOD: Sends Unsolicited Texts to Consumers, Drummond Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
NESHA DRUMMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMD FOOD CORP. D/B/A PRICE CHOICE
SUPERMARKET, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-013244 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., May 3, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to the cellular
telephone numbers of consumers in an attempt to promote its
products and services without obtaining prior express written
consent. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and
Class members were harmed, says the suit.
AMD Food Corp., doing business as Price Choice Supermarket, is a
supermarket company in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
E-mail: Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
AON INVESTMENTS: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over 401(K) Redesign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Astellas US LLC and Aon
Investments USA Inc. reached a class-wide settlement with Astellas
workers who challenged a 2016 redesign of their 401(k) plan to
offer Aon funds they say were pricey and performed badly.
All parties have agreed to a class settlement resolving all claims
and potential appellate rights, according to a joint settlement
notice filed May 5 in the US District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. They expect to file the deal for approval by
Judge Ronald A. Guzmán by June 9, they said. [GN]
ARDELYX INC: Sept. 14 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ardelyx 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 3, 2023, that the hearing on the the motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the consolidated securities class
suit is scheduled on September 14, 2023 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
On July 30 and August 12, 2021, two putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California naming as defendants Ardelyx and
two current officers captioned Strezsak v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-05868-HSG, and Siegel v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:21-cv-06228-HSG (together, the “Securities Class
Actions”). The complaints allege that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact related to tenapanor.
The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of costs,
including attorneys' fees.
On July 19, 2022, the court consolidated the two putative class
actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 29,
2022.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 2, 2022.
In January and February 2023, in lieu of filing a response to
defendant's motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
leave to further amend their complaint and defendants filed an
opposition to the motion for leave to further amend the complaint.
On April 6, 2023, the court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to
further amend the complaint.
With the second amended complaint, the plaintiffs seek to represent
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ardelyx securities
between March 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021.
The parties have stipulated to a schedule for the filing of
Defendants second motion to dismiss on June 2, 2023, and a hearing
on the motion to dismiss to be held on September 14, 2023.
The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
it has not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability
associated with these legal proceedings.
Ardelyx is a specialized biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing first-in-class medicine to improve treatment for people
with cardiorenal disease. This includes patients with chronic
kidney disease ("CKD") on dialysis suffering from elevated serum
phosphorus, or hyperphosphatemia; and CKD patients and/or heart
failure patients with elevated serum potassium, or hyperkalemia.
[BN]
BARNARD COLLEGE: Faces Coccaro Suit Over Tuition Fee Adjustments
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIA COCCARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARNARD COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-03809 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2023) is a class action for
damages, restitution, and declaratory relief resulting from
Barnard's retention of the tuition and fees paid by the Plaintiff
and the other putative Class Members for in-person education and
services not being provided.
According to the complaint, on March 2020, in response to the
outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes the
COVID-19 disease (the "COVID-19 pandemic"), Barnard, like many
other universities, transitioned to remote online-only education,
canceled athletic and other on-campus recreational events, canceled
student activity events, and ordered students to refrain from going
on campus.
As a result of the alleged conduct, all on-campus education,
services, and amenities were no longer available to Barnard
students. Despite the harsh reality that students could no longer
enjoy the benefit of the bargain for which they pre-paid, Barnard
refused to provide a prorated refund of tuition or fees tied to
on-campus education, services, and amenities that were not
available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020
semester.
Accordingly, the students have lost the benefits of the bargain for
services and the experience they paid for but could no longer
access or use, the suit asserts.
BARNARD COLLEGE operates as a liberal arts college for women. The
College offers majors in the humanities, social sciences, arts and
natural sciences, architecture, chemistry, dance, economics,
mathematics, political science, sociology, religion, and other
programs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
Email: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
BERRY CORP: Continues to Defend Torres Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period
ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Torres securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
On November, 20, 2020, Luis Torres, individually and on behalf of a
putative class, filed a securities class action lawsuit (the
"Torres Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against Berry Corp. and certain of its
current and former directors and officers (collectively, the
"Defendants").
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (as amended, the "Securities Act"), and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended,
the "Exchange Act"), on behalf of a putative class of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired (i) common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's 2018 IPO; or (ii) Berry Corp.'s
securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 (the "Class
Period").
In particular, the complaint alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements during the Class Period and in the
offering materials for the IPO, concerning the Company's business,
operational efficiency and stability, and compliance policies, that
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, resulting in
injury to the purported class members when the value of Berry
Corp.'s common stock declined following release of its financial
results for the third quarter of 2020 on November 3, 2020.
On November 1, 2021, the court-appointed co-lead plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of the same
putative class under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging,
among other things, that the Company and the individual Defendants
made false and misleading statements between July 26, 2018 and
November 3, 2020 regarding the Company’s permits and permitting
processes.
The amended complaint does not quantify the alleged losses but
seeks to recover all damages sustained by the putative class as a
result of these alleged securities violations, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 24, 2022 and on
September 13, 2022, the Court issued an order denying that motion.
The case is now in discovery.
On February 13, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and on April 14, 2023, the defendants filed their
opposition; the plaintiffs are required to file their reply on or
before May 30, 2023.
The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.
Berry Corporation is an independent upstream energy company based
in Texas.
BEYOND MEAT: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 10
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of purchasers of Beyond Meat, Inc. (NASDAQ: BYND)
common stock between May 5, 2020 and October 13, 2022. Beyond Meat
is a Los Angeles-based producer of plant-based meat substitutes.
For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call (800) 350-6003.
What is this Case About: Beyond Meat, Inc. (BYND) Misled Investors
Regarding its Ability to Produce Products at Scale to the
Specifications of its Key Customers
According to the complaint, during the class period, Beyond Meat
misled investors by boasting about the success of its product tests
with its large-scale partnerships, including prominent food
retailers like McDonalds, Starbucks, KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell.
Beyond Meat assured investors and partners that it would "ensure
manufacturability" through "extensive testing," and that it was
capable of manufacturing the unique plant-based meat products at
commercial scale.
In truth, Beyond Meat was unable to manufacture its meat
substitutes at scale to the specifications of its partners.
Further, Beyond Meat suffered from widespread scaling issues,
particularly misalignment and delayed decision-making, which led to
corresponding production delays. Such issues were exacerbated by
Beyond Meat's disjointed production lines. These problems led some
partners to balk at the high price of Beyond Meat's products and
express doubts about the Company's ability to produce them at
commercial scale.
The truth began to emerge on October 22, 2021, when Beyond Meat
reduced its third quarter net revenues outlook by 25%. On this news
the Company's stock price declined by $12.82 per share, or nearly
12%, from $108.62 per share to $95.80 per share. As the truth
continued to reveal itself, the Company's stock price continued to
decline, closing at $13.35 per share at the end of the class
period.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Beyond Meat, Inc.
Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must
file their papers by July 10, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member. For more
information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Beyond Meat, Inc. settles
or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in
wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
BIOTIGEN LLC: Faces Thom Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW THOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIOTIGEN, LLC d/b/a PROVARIN, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-23-013211 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty.,
May 3, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff under the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
To promote its goods and services, the Defendant allegedly engages
in telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's
telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members
harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory
damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, says
the suit.
Biotigen, LLC sells male enhancement pills online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
BLACKSTONE INC: Class Suit Over Genetic Info Privacy Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Law Journal reports that 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in
case captioned Carolyn Bridges v. Blackstone, Inc., Case No.:
22-2486, Officials: Hamilton, Scudder, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Class Action - Genetic Information Privacy Act
Carolyn Bridges and Raymond Cunningham provided their DNA to
Ancestry.com, the largest genealogy company in the world. A few
years later, Blackstone, Inc. acquired Ancestry in a deal
reportedly worth $4.7 billion. Bridges and Cunningham filed this
putative class action against Blackstone, alleging that the
acquisition resulted in a violation of Illinois's Genetic
Information Privacy Act. The district court concluded that Bridges
and Cunningham failed to state a claim. The Seventh Circuit curled
that it cannot plausibly infer from the plaintiffs' sparse
allegations that Blackstone compelled disclosure of protected
genetic information simply by acquiring Ancestry.
Affirmed.
Decided 05/01/23 [GN]
BODY & POLE: Johnson, et al., Seek Final Nod of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN PIPER JOHNSON,
REBECCA PARDUE and RODENELLIE PLUVIOSE, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, v. BODY & POLE, INC. and KYRA
JOHANNESEN Case No. 1:22-cv-00857-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Granting final approval to the settlement reached by the
parties, as embodied in their Settlement Agreement And
Release
attached to the Delson Declaration;
2. Certifying the following settlement class (the "Class") under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in connection with the
settlement process:
"All individuals who were Work-Studies at the Defendant Body
&
Pole, Inc., at any time from February 1, 2016 through
February
7, 2023 (the date of the Court’s Order granting Preliminary
Approval of the Settlement);
3. Certifying the following Collective Action (the "Collective
Action") under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act:
"All individuals who were Work-Studies at the Defendant Body
&
Pole, at any time from February 1, 2019 through February 7,
2023;"
4. Approving an award of attorney's fees in the amount of
$36,000
to Granovsky & Sundaresh PLLC, Class Counsel in this matter;
and
5. Entering judgment dismissing this action with prejudice as
provided in the Proposed Order attached to the Delson
Declaration.
Body & Pole offers in-studio and online classes for dance. They
provide classes for pole dance, hoop dance, silk dance, flex dance,
and core dance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42xMNCh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Esq.
Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC
48 Wall Street, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (646) 524-6001
E-mail: delson@g-s-law.com
ag@g-s-law.com
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Price Fixing Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Danzis, writing for PlayNJ, reports that a proposed
call-action suit filed by customers claims that a handful of
Atlantic City casinos artificially inflated room rental prices for
years.
The filing names Caesars Entertainment, MGM Resorts International
and Hard Rock International for violating US antitrust law,
according to a 109-page complaint filed on May 9 in US District
Court in New Jersey. The suit also names Cendyn Group, a
Florida-based hospitality technology company that provides
room-booking software to hotel operators.
Caesars operates three casinos in Atlantic City: Caesars, Harrah's
Resort and Tropicana. MGM Resorts oversees Borgata Hotel Casino &
Spa, the city's highest-grossing property. Hard Rock Hotel & Casino
Atlantic City stands as the second-best market performer.
Combined, these five casinos control an AC market share of between
72% and 80% since the summer of 2018, according to court
documents.
Lawsuit: AC casinos 'facilitated an anticompetitive scheme'
The suit claims the casino operators "facilitated an
anticompetitive scheme" using Cendyn's shared pricing algorithm to
"fix, raise, and stabilize" hotel rooms. The plaintiffs say this
amounts to "engaging in an ongoing conspiracy," which resulted in
guests paying "supra-competitive prices" since June 28, 2018.
The AC casinos "misrepresented to guests, through omissions,
half-truths, and misrepresentations, how they determined room
rates," according to the complaint.
The casino companies have yet to respond to the court filing.
During that period, public data from NJ gambling regulators shows
an increase in Atlantic City casino hotel room rates but a decline
in occupancy rates. In 2019, the average room rate was $142.11 and
the occupancy rate was 78.9%. Last year, the average room went for
$177.89 with 73.4% occupancy.
"There are no market factors, like rising costs or increased
demand, that sufficiently can explain the kind of increase in room
rates and corresponding revenue that Casino-Hotel Defendants each
have obtained during the class period," the lawsuit states.
Lawsuit could include thousands of customers
Heather Altman of Deptford (Gloucester County) and Eliza Wiatroski
of Freehold (Monmouth County) filed the complaint on "behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated."
The lawsuit said there are "tens if not hundreds of thousands" of
customers who could be part of a class action. The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified compensatory and triple damages under federal
antitrust laws and a jury trial.
The case mirrors ongoing legal action in Nevada, where a similar
complaint of antitrust conspiracy was filed against Las Vegas
casino hotels. The operators have requested the case in Nevada be
dismissed. [GN]
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Settles Class Suit Over Mortgage Charges for $3M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton of Investment Executive reports that CIBC is paying
$3 million to settle a class action in Quebec over mortgage
prepayment charges.
On March 10, the Superior Court of Quebec approved a proposed
settlement that will see the bank resolve, without admitting the
allegations, the Quebec portion of a class action over the
calculation and collection of mortgage prepayment charges.
An earlier mediation had resolved the action for $7.5 million in
other provinces, but excluded claimants in Quebec.
The court approved the $3-million settlement for claimants in
Quebec, saying the amount "appears more generous" compared with the
amount agreed upon for the claims from the other provinces.
Under the agreement, approved claimants who were charged mortgage
prepayment penalties of more than three months of interest between
October 2008 and June 2022 will receive a share of the settlement
up to $3,000 "depending on when they borrowed money and prepaid
their mortgage loan, the amount of their prepayment charges" and
how many claims are filed.
The $3,000 limit doesn't apply to customers who prepaid their
mortgage due to special circumstances, such as the death of -- or
divorce from -- a co-borrower, or an incapacitating illness.
Affected borrowers have until Nov. 2 to file a claim. [GN]
CANOPY GROWTH: May Face Class Action Suit From Investors
--------------------------------------------------------
Kalloghlian Myers LLP is investigating a potential investor class
action against Canopy Growth Corporation.
On May 10, 2023, Canopy Growth Corporation (WEED.TO) disclosed that
it had identified material misstatements in its prior financial
statements related to sales in its BioSteel business unit that were
accounted for incorrectly. The company identified misstatements in
its audited annual financial Statements for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2022 and its interim financial statements for the
quarterly periods ended June 30, 2022, September 30, 2022 and
December 31, 2022.
Contacts
If you owned shares in Canopy Growth Corporation, contact:
Garth Myers
Kalloghlian Myers LLP
(647) 969-4472
garth@kalloghlianmyers.com [GN]
CHARLOTTE TILBURY: Court Remands BIPA Class Action to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal court in Illinois
remanded a class action against beauty company Charlotte Tilbury
Beauty Inc. to state court. The lawsuit says the company "virtual
try on" tool stole users' facial geometry in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, but the plaintiffs did
not show they suffered the necessary $5 million in damages
necessary to justify a federal suit under the Class Action Fairness
Act.
A copy of the ruling is available at:
https://webservices.courthousenews.com/sites/Data/AppellateOpinionUploads/2023-12-5--11-13-08-c4a3a149-6c4f-4ca3-9c5c-e0312bfff2bb.pdf
[GN]
CHURCH MUTUAL: GCH Seeks to Certify Policyholder Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENERATION CHANGERS
CHURCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. (Court), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification
of the following class, defined as:
"All Church Mutual Insurance Company (CMIC) policyholders (or
their
lawful assignees) who made: (1) a structural damage claim for
property located in Arizona, California, Illinois, Kentucky,
Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and/or Vermont;
and
(2) for which CMIC itself accepted coverage and then chose to
calculate actual cash value exclusively pursuant to the
replacement
cost less depreciation methodology and not any other
methodology,
such as fair market value; and (3) which resulted in an actual
cash
value payment during the class period from which non-material
depreciation was withheld from the policyholder; or which should
have resulted in an actual cash value payment but for the
withholding of non-material depreciation causing the loss to
drop
below the applicable deductible."
In this definition, "non-material depreciation" means
application
of either the "depreciate removal, " "depreciate non-material"
and/or "depreciate O&P" option settings within Xactimate (TM)
software or similar depreciation option settings in competing
commercial software programs.
The class excludes any claims for which the applicable limits of
insurance have been exhausted by initial actual cash value
payments.
The class also excludes any claims arising under labor
depreciation
permissive policy forms, i.e., those forms and endorsements
permitting the "depreciation" of labor within the text of the
policy form, unless the use of those forms violate the law of
the
respective state at issue.
For structures located in Arizona, California, Illinois,
Kentucky,
Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont, the class period only
includes
policyholders with claims having a date of loss on or after
October
5, 2019, through the present. For Mississippi structures, the
class
period only includes policyholders with claims having a date of
loss on or after October 5, 2018, through the present.
For Missouri policyholders, the class period only includes
policyholders with claims having a date of loss on or after
September 26, 2012, through the present.
The Plaintiff further move for an order appointing the Plaintiffs
as class representatives, appointing J. Brandon McWherter, Erik D.
Peterson, and T. Joseph Snodgrass as class counsel and providing
all other relief requested that is just and to which the Plaintiff
or the class may be entitled.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41f7EsQ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
E-mail: brandon@msb.law
- and -
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC
110 W. Vine St., Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (800) 614-1957
E-mail: erik@eplo.law
- and -
T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
SNODGRASS LAW LLC
100 S. Fifth St., Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 448-2600
E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel J. Ripper, Esq.
LUTHER-ANDERSON, PLLP
Chattanooga, TN 37401-0151
E-mail: dan@lutheranderson.com
George T. Lewis, Esq.
Ryan A. Strain, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
165 Madison Ave., Suite 2000
Memphis, TN 38103
E-mail: blewis@bakerdonelson.com
rstrain@bakerdonelson.com
CLARK AND WHITE: Zarate Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
RODOLFO ZARATE, as an aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all
other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys’
General Act of 2004, Plaintiff v. CLARK AND WHITE LANDSCAPE, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23SMCV01977 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
May 4, 2023) is a representative action brought pursuant to the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 against
the Defendants for failure to comply with the law and restraints on
competition, whistleblowing and freedom of speech.
According to the complaint, the Defendants had and have a policy or
practice of preventing Plaintiff and/or other aggrieved employees
from engaging in lawful conduct during non-work hours, thus
violating state statutes entitling employees to disclose wages,
working conditions, and illegal conduct, including, without
limitation, Labor Code sections 96, subdivision (k), 98.6, 232,
232.5, and 1197.5, subdivision (k). The Plaintiff is informed and
believes that this lawful conduct includes the exercise of
Plaintiff's and/or other aggrieved employee's constitutional rights
of freedom of speech and economic liberty.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to,
garden maintenance and installation duties from approximately 2000
through March of 2022.
Clark and White Landscape is authorized to operate and do business
in the County of Los Angeles in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jasmin K. Gill, Esq.
J. GILL LAW GROUP, P.C.
A Professional Corporation
515 South Flower Street, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 459-6023
Facsimile: (310) 728-2137
E-mail: jasmin@jkgilllaw.com
CLEVELAND ATKINSON: Myrick Seeks to Modify Amended Case Mng't Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEROAM MYRICK, as an
Individual and as Representative on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CLEVELAND ATKINSON, Jr., AS SHERIFF OF EDGECOMBE
COUNTY; COUNTY OF EDGECOMBE; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00139-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff move the Court,
pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 6.1, to partially modify
the Amended Case Management Order by extending the time in which
Plaintiff is required to file his motion for class/collective
action certification for 90 days, from May 1, 2023 to September 1,
2023.
The Plaintiff's attorney (an asthmatic who, despite full
vaccinations, contracted COVID for the fourth time in January and
has since had disabling residual effects) is continuing to improve
and anticipates being able to fully participate in the litigation
aided by grant of this request.
The Plaintiff's counsel's current residuals are daily headaches and
speech difficulties. The Plaintiff's counsel is engaged in speech
therapy and reports measurable improvements.
Phase One discovery is complete pursuant to the Case Management
Order and the parties' previous pursuit of discovery. The parties
have voluntarily entered into a Protective Order and agreements
regarding electronic discovery.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p2UtxM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alvin L. Pittman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALVIN L. PITTMAN
5777 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 1685
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 337-3077
Facsimile: (310) 337-3080
E-mail: office@apittman-law.com
- and -
Mary Craven Adams, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: (336) 721-3735
Facsimile: (336) 733-8427
E-mail: Mary.Adams@wbd-us.com
CME GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Breach-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CME Group 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 3, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from breach of contract-related putative class suit in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division.
A putative class action complaint was filed January 15, 2014 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, against CME Group
Inc. and the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc.
The plaintiffs, certain Class B shareholders of CME Group and Class
B members of CBOT, allege breach of contract and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for violations of
their core rights granted in the defendants' respective
Certificates of Incorporation.
On December 2, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a damages-only class. No trial date has been set.
Given the uncertainty of factors that may potentially affect the
resolution of the matter, at this time the company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably
possible losses in the unlikely event it were found to be liable at
trial.
Based on its investigation to date, the company believes that it
has strong factual and legal defenses to the claims.
Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CME Group Inc. --
http://www.cmegroup.com/-- formerly Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Holdings Inc., offers access to asset classes from a single
electronic trading platform and trading floors in Chicago and New
York City. The Company offers futures and options on futures
based on interest rates, equity indexes, foreign exchange, energy,
agricultural commodities, metals, and alternative investment
products, such as weather and real estate.
COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 23, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLA TAPIA, v. THE
COCA-COLA COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-01362-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline
Amendment of Pleadings/ Joinder June 9, 2023
Close of Fact Discovery Jan. 26, 2024
Class Certification Filing Deadline and Feb. 23, 2024
Disclosure of the Plaintiff's Expert
Report(s)
Opposition to Class Certification Apr. 26, 20241
Filing Deadline and Disclosure of
the Defendant’s Expert Report(s)
Close of Expert Discovery May 31, 2024
Reply in Support of Class Certification June 7, 2024
Filing Deadline
Hearing on Class Certification Motion July 11, 2024
and Daubert Motions
Coca-Cola is a total beverage company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44OZnz4 at no extra charge.[CC]
CONDUENT INC: Employees' Final Settlement Hearing Set for May 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conduent Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2023, that the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey set final settlement hearing for
Employees' Retirement class suit on May 24, 2023.
On March 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with
the Company’s statements and alleged omissions regarding the
Company's financial guidance and business and operations was filed
against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its
former Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the Court).
The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities from
February 21, 2018 through November 6, 2018, and also seeks
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
The Company moved to dismiss the class action complaint in its
entirety.
In June 2020, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed
the claims to proceed.
The Court granted Class Certification on February 28, 2022. Upon
the substantial completion of document discovery, the parties
agreed to engage in mediation, and the Court administratively
terminated the litigation to permit those efforts to proceed.
Without any admission of liability or damages, in the third quarter
of 2022, the parties settled this matter following that mediation,
and filed the necessary documentation for preliminary approval by
the court, class notice, and the claims administration process.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement terms and
related documentation on January 27, 2023, with a final Settlement
Hearing scheduled for May 24, 2023.
Conduent Incorporated is a provider of business process services
based in New Jersey.
CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Brittingham Files Renewed Bid for Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY N. BRITTINGHAM, V.
CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00096-MU (S.D.
Ala.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his
renewed motion for class certification and supporting brief:
"All persons who were (1) residents of the United States; (2)
whose
credit information was communicated to Experian, Equifax,
TransUnion, or other consumer reporting agencies, by CACi using
the
name Midwest Recovery Systems between September 1, 2019, and
September 30, 2020."
Excluded from this Class are all persons who have already
settled
or otherwise compromised their claims against Defendant. Also
excluded from the Class is the Defendant, and any entity in
which
the Defendant has a controlling interest, the Defendant's
agents,
and employees, any Judge to whom this action is assigned and any
member of such Judge’s staff and immediate family, and all
people
who submit timely and otherwise proper requests for exclusion
from
the Class.
The case is brought under Federal Consumer Protection Statutes. The
Plaintiff seeks certification of a class under Rules 23(a)(1)-(4),
and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He asserts
claims against the defendant under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA").
Consumer Adjustment provides accounts receivable management
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/411TlYN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
21 South Section Street
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (251) 990-5558
Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
E-mail: epunderwood@alalaw.com
- and -
Steven P. Gregory, Esq.
GREGORY LAW FIRM, PC
505 20th Street North, Suite 1215
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 208-0312
E-mail: steve@gregorylawfirm.us
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew J. Bell, Esq.
MALONE FROST MARTIN
1200 S. Big Bend Bvld.
St. Louis, MO 63117
Telephone: (314) 669-5490
Facsimile: (888) 632-6937
and
L. Jackson Young, Jr., Esq.
MOORE YOUNG FOSTER & HAZELTON, LLP
1122 Edenton Street
Birmingham, AL 35242
Telephone: (205) 879-8722
Facsimile: (205) 879-8831
E-mail: jyoung@my-defense.com
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Melucci Suit Settlement for Final Court Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corcept 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 3, 2023, that the proposed Melucci
purported securities class suit settlement is subject to the final
approval of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK) (the
"Melucci litigation").
The complaint named us and certain of our executive officers as
defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges that
the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and
failed to disclose adverse facts about our business, operations and
prospects. The complaint asserts a putative class period extending
from August 2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified
monetary relief, interest and attorneys' fees. On October 7, 2019,
the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on December
6, 2019.
With respect to these allegations, the Company have stated, from
the beginning, that it has done nothing wrong.
On February 8, 2023, the Company reached an agreement in principle
(the "Proposed Settlement") to resolve all claims in the Melucci
litigation.
Under the Proposed Settlement, it has agreed to make a one-time
payment of $14.0 million, which will be covered in full by our
insurers.
In connection with the Proposed Settlement, the Company recorded a
settlement expense of $14.0 million and corresponding insurance
recovery of $14.0 million in operating expenses on its consolidated
statement of income in the fourth quarter of 2022.
Accordingly, the Company recorded an accrued liability of $14.0
million and a corresponding insurance recovery receivable of $14.0
million on its condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31,
2023.
The Proposed Settlement is subject to the final approval of the
Court.
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated is a commercial-stage company
engaged in the discovery and development of drugs based in
California.
CORE SCIENTIFIC: Faces Mei Peng Shareholder Suit in Texas Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Core Scientific, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 4, 2023, that in November 2022,
plaintiff Mei Peng filed a putative class action in the United
States District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division,
asserting that the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act by
failing to disclose to investors, among other things, that the
Company was vulnerable to litigation, that certain clients had
breached their agreements, and that this impacted the company's
profitability and ability to continue as a going concern.
Core Scientific, Inc. is a large-scale operator of facilities for
digital asset mining and a premier provider of block chain
infrastructure, software solutions and services.
CREDIT BUREAU: Kang Seeks Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNG GON KANG,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CREDIT
BUREAU CONNECTION, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01359-SKO (E.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminary
approving the parties' class action settlement.
Credit Bureau provides credit report and compliance solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nzIszu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
Monterrey CA 93942
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
cbc@caddellchapman.com
aet@caddellchapman.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
EDGIO INC: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bid Set June 26
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Edgio, Inc. (NASDAQ: EGIO) between May 11, 2021
and March 12, 2023. Edgio provides software solutions for
companies. Edgio's services include digital content delivery,
online video delivery, cloud security, edge computing, cloud
storage, and professional services. On June 16, 2022, the Company
changed its name from Limelight Networks, Inc. to Edgio, Inc.
What is this Case About: Edgio, Inc. (EGIO) Had Material Weaknesses
in its Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the sale of Open Edge
equipment should be accounted as financing leases; (2) there were
material weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting related to Open Edge transactions; and (3) as a
result, the Company's revenue had been overstated in certain
periods.
On March 13, 2023, Edgio issued a press release announcing that it
will restate its previously issued financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, as well as the quarterly
reports for fiscal 2022 and 2021, because its audit committee
"identified an error in the Company's historic accounting treatment
of Edgio's Open Edge solution." The Company anticipated the
restatements would result in a "reduction to revenue of up to
approximately $23.0 million for the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2022, up to approximately $16.7 million for the
twelve-month period ended December 31, 2021, and up to
approximately $6.6 million for the twelve-month period ended
December 31, 2020." As a result, the Company stated that it would
be unable to file its annual report on time. On this news, the
Company's share price fell $0.1597, or 15.5%, to close at $0.8703
per share on March 13, 2023.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Edgio. Shareholders who
want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers
by June 26, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Edgio, Inc. settles or to
receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com
https://www.facebook.com/RobbinsLLP/
https://www.linkedin [GN]
ENOVIX: Discovery Funds, Gary Kung Appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICE L. TWITCHELL, et
al., v. ENOVIX CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00372-SI (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order granting the
motions to consolidate and granting the motions of the Discovery
Funds and Gary Kung, appointing them as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.
The Court further appoints Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP and The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., as Co-Lead Counsel, and Sawyer & Labar LLP as
Liaison Counsel. The remaining motions for appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel are denied.
The parties shall file a stipulation regarding the schedule for the
filing of any consolidated complaint and motion practice no later
than May 8, 2023.
On January 6 and January 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.
The Plaintiffs allege causes of action under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. 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 February 22, 2021, and January 3, 2023, inclusive.
According to the complaints, Enovix "purports to design, develop,
and manufacture siliconanode lithium-ion batteries using
proprietary 3D cell architecture, which the Company claims allow
its batteries to achieve higher energy density.
On February 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.
On January 3, 2023, defendant 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 January 3, 2022 to a close of
$7.15 on January 4, 2022."
Enovix Corporation is an advanced silicon battery company. The
Company designs, develops, and commercially manufactures an
advanced silicon-anode lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery using its
three-dimensional (3D) cell architecture.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AT22tz at no extra charge.[CC]
EXELON CORP: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Racketeering Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2023, that the dismissal of the consolidated
federal racketeering class suit is affirmed by the Seventh Circuit
on its entirety.
Four putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were
filed in federal court on behalf of ComEd customers in the third
quarter of 2020 alleging, among other things, civil violations of
federal racketeering laws.
In addition, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a motion to
intervene in these cases on October 22, 2020 which was granted on
December 23, 2020.
On September 9, 2021, the federal court granted Exelon's and
ComEd's motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiffs' and CUB's
federal law claim with prejudice.
The federal court also dismissed the related state law claims made
by the federal plaintiffs and CUB on jurisdictional grounds.
Plaintiffs appealed dismissal of the federal law claim to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs and CUB also refiled their state law claims in state
court and moved to consolidate them with the already pending
consumer state court class action, discussed below.
On August 22, 2022, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of
the consolidated federal cases in their entirety.
The time to further appeal has passed and the Seventh Circuit’s
decision is final.
Exelon is a utility services holding company based in Illinois.
EXELON CORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Illinois Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2023, that the parties involved in the
consolidated class suit awaits court decision and/or oral
argument.
Three putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were
filed in Illinois state court in the third quarter of 2020 seeking
restitution and compensatory damages on behalf of ComEd customers.
The cases were consolidated into a single action in October of
2020.
In November 2020, CUB filed a motion to intervene in the cases
pursuant to an Illinois statute allowing CUB to intervene as a
party or otherwise participate on behalf of utility consumers in
any proceeding which affects the interest of utility consumers.
On November 23, 2020, the court allowed CUB's intervention, but
denied CUB's request to stay these cases. Plaintiffs subsequently
filed a consolidated complaint, and ComEd and Exelon filed a motion
to dismiss on jurisdictional and substantive grounds on January 11,
2021.
Briefing on that motion was completed on March 2, 2021.
The parties agreed, on March 25, 2021, along with the federal court
plaintiffs discussed above, to jointly engage in mediation.
The parties participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but
no settlement was reached.
On December 23, 2021, the state court granted ComEd and Exelon's
motion to dismiss with prejudice.
On December 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that
dismissal and for permission to amend their complaint.
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion on January 21, 2022.
Plaintiffs have appealed the court's ruling dismissing their
complaint to the First District Court of Appeals.
On February 15, 2022, Exelon and ComEd moved to dismiss the federal
plaintiffs' refiled state law claims, seeking dismissal on the same
legal grounds asserted in their motion to dismiss the original
state court plaintiffs' complaint.
The court granted dismissal of the refiled state claims on February
16, 2022.
The original federal plaintiffs appealed that dismissal on February
18, 2022.
The two state appeals were consolidated on March 21, 2022.
The appellate briefing is complete and the parties are awaiting
oral argument and/or a decision.
Exelon is a utility services holding company based in Illinois.
EXELON CORP: Ruling on Dismissal Bid Expected June 9
----------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Lake County, Illinois Circuit
Court expects to issue dismissal motion ruling on or before June 9,
2023.
On November 3, 2022, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in Lake County, Illinois Circuit Court against ComEd and
Exelon for unjust enrichment and deceptive business practices in
connection with the conduct giving rise to the DPA.
Plaintiff seeks an accounting and disgorgement of any benefits
ComEd allegedly obtained from said conduct. Plaintiff served
initial discovery requests on ComEd in December 2022, to which
ComEd has responded.
ComEd and Exelon filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on
February 3, 2023.
The parties fully briefed the motion, and on April 21, 2023, the
court heard oral argument on the motion.
The court expects to issue its ruling on the motion to dismiss on
or before June 9, 2023.
Exelon is a utility services holding company based in Illinois.
R
FARMERS GROUP INC: Lim Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Paul Lim, Daniel Salabaj, Lorina Nuessle,
Anthony Meyer, David Bolton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Farmers Group, Inc., Fire Underwriters
Association, Truck Underwriters Association, Case No. 23STCV07597
was removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 4, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03419-ODW-SK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Farmers Insurance Group -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is an
American insurer group of vehicles, homes and small businesses and
also provides other insurance and financial services products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gabriel Barenfeld, Esq.
Gretchen M Nelson, Esq.
NELSON AND FRAENKEL LLP
601 South Figueroa Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (844) 622-6469
Fax: (213) 622-6019
Email: gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com
gnelson@nflawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
Deborah L. Stein, Esq.
Julian Wing-Kai Poon, Esq.
Madeleine McKenna, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: (213) 229-7000
Fax: (213) 229-7520
Email: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
dstein@gibsondunn.com
jpoon@gibsondunn.com
mmckenna@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Vanessa O. Wells, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
855 Main St. Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (650) 463-4000
Fax: (650) 463-4199
Email: vanessa.wells@hoganlovells.com
FCA US: Class Settlement in Victorino Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS VICTORINO and ADAM TAVITIAN, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 16cv1617-GPC (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.
The Plaintiff brought a class action against Defendant FCA, the
designer, manufacturer and distributor of the 2013-2015 Dodge Dart
vehicles equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission built on
Nov. 12, 2014, alleging they have a defective clutch system that
can cause the clutch to fail and stick to the floor, preventing
drivers from shifting gears and controlling the vehicle's speed.
The Plaintiff filed the operative FAC on June 19, 2017, alleging
five causes of action against Defendant for violating California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violating California's unfair
competition law ("UCL"), breaching California's implied warranty
law under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song Beverly
Act"), breaching federal implied warranty law under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), and unjust enrichment. After
the Court's ruling on Defendant's motion for summary judgment and
motion for reconsideration, the remaining causes of action are the
breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song
Beverly Act and the MMWA, and the UCL claim premised on the breach
of implied warranty claims.
On Oct. 17, 2019, the Court certified a Song Beverly Act class
consisting of "all persons who purchased or leased in California,
from an authorized dealership, a new Class Vehicle primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes." The Plaintiff was
appointed as the Class Representative and his counsel, Capstone Law
APC, was appointed the Class Counsel. Co-counsel Kiesel Law LLP was
appointed the co-Class counsel on April 14, 2022.
The case involved hard-fought litigation with written discovery,
depositions, countless numbers of contested motion practice, expert
discovery, rulings on motions in limine with trial date set on Oct.
11, 2022. After extensive settlement negotiations with the
Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reached a
proposed settlement on Sept. 27, 2022, on the eve of trial.
Before the Court is the Plaintiff motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement. A hearing was held on April 21, 2023.
At the hearing, the Court raised some deficiencies it noted in the
Long Form Notice and a discrepancy in the Settlement Agreement. On
May 5, 2023, the parties filed a revised Long Form Notice.
The Settlement Agreement will bring immediate and valuable relief
for the clutch defect. Therefore, the motion seeks the entry of an
order (1) granting preliminary approval of the Settlement; (2)
confirming certification of the Class for settlement purposes: (3)
confirming the Plaintiff as the Class Representative; (4)
confirming the Plaintiff's counsel, Capstone Law APC and Kiesel Law
LLP, as the Class Counsel; (5) approving the parties' proposed form
and method of giving the Class Members notice of the action and
proposed Settlement; (6) directing that notice be given to the
Class Members in the proposed form and manner; and (7) setting a
hearing on whether the Court should grant Final Approval of the
Settlement, enter judgment, award attorneys' fees and expenses to
the Plaintiff's counsel, and grant an incentive award to the
Plaintiff.
After careful review of the Settlement Agreement, Judge Curiel
finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and has no obvious deficiencies that preclude preliminary
approval. Accordingly, he preliminarily approves all terms of the
Settlement Agreement and its Exhibits.
As such, Judge Curiel preliminarily certifies the following
Settlement Class: All persons who, prior to the Preliminary
Approval Date, purchased or leased in California, from an
authorized dealership, a new 2013-2015 Dodge Dart vehicle equipped
with a Fiat C635 manual transmission built on or before Nov. 12,
2014, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
He preliminarily appoints (i) Victorino to serve as the Class
Representative for the Settlement Class; (ii) Capstone Law APC and
Kiesel Law LLP to serve as the Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class; and (iii) Kroll Administration as the Notice Administrator
to supervise and administer the Class Notice.
Judge Curiel approves the proposed Class Notice. He further
approves the proposed method for providing notice of the Settlement
to the Settlement Class Members, as reflected in the plan for Class
Notice in the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Curiel specifically approves the Parties' proposal that, on
an agreed upon date with the Notice Administrator, but in no event
later than July 14, 2023, the Notice Administrator will cause
individual Class Notice to be mailed, by first class mail, to the
current or last known addresses of all reasonably identifiable
Settlement Class Members. He specifically approves the procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement for identifying Settlement
Class Members, and for re-mailing notice packets and performing
advanced address searches for Settlement Class Members' addresses
if returned as undeliverable. The Notice Administrator will
establish the Settlement Website as contemplated by the Settlement
Agreement. Judge Curiel further approves the payment of notice
costs as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
Pending final determination of the joint application for approval
of the Settlement Agreement, all proceedings in the Litigation,
other than settlement approval proceedings, will be stayed.
Judge Curiel directs that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), a
final Fairness Hearing will be held on Sept. 29, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.
in Courtroom 2D of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Edward J. Schwartz United States
Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101.
No later than Aug. 18, 2023, the Settlement Class Counsel will file
their Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement. The Class
Counsel will move for approval of attorney's fees, litigation
expense reimbursements, and class representative service awards no
later than 14 calendar days before the deadline to object.
Judge Curiel further directs that no later than Sept. 22, 2023, the
Class Counsel may file any supplemental brief in further support of
final approval. Any Settlement Class Members wishing to object to
the proposed Settlement or the requests for the Class Counsel fees
and expenses and/or the Class Representatives service award, must
adhere to the deadline and procedures for the objection to be
considered.
Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the
Settlement Class must submit a request for exclusion to the Notice
Administrator at the address specified in the Class Notice, by
first-class mail postmarked no later than Sept. 15, 2023. Class
Members who wish to be excluded from the Class must do so with
respect to all Class Vehicles they own(ed) or lease(d); Class
Members may not exclude themselves from the Class with respect to
some Class Vehicles and include themselves in the Class with
respect to other Class Vehicles.
The Notice Administrator will maintain a list of all Requests for
Exclusion and will report the names and addresses of all such
entities and natural persons requesting exclusion to the Court, FCA
US's counsel, and Class Counsel seven days prior to the Fairness
Hearing, and the list of entities and natural persons deemed by the
Court to have excluded themselves from the Class will be attached
as an exhibit to the Final Order and Judgment.
Each owner or lessee of a Class Vehicle with a pending lawsuit
against the Defendant alleging problems with the clutch in a Class
Vehicle in which final judgment has not yet been entered and who
dismiss such litigation and affirmatively opt-in to the Settlement
will be members of the Class for all purposes.
The Notice Administrator will maintain a list of all owners or
lessees of Class Vehicles with lawsuits against FCA US alleging
problems with the clutch in Class Vehicles pending on the Notice
Date in which final judgment has not yet been entered who opt-in to
the Settlement.
Pending the Final Fairness Hearing and the Court's decision whether
to finally approve the Settlement, no Settlement Class Member,
either directly, representatively, or in any other capacity, will
commence, continue, prosecute, continue to prosecute, or
participate in, against any of the Released Parties (as defined in
the Settlement Agreement), any action or proceeding in any court or
tribunal asserting any of the matters, claims or causes of action
that are to be released in the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1651(a) and 2283, Judge Curiel finds that issuance
of this preliminary injunction is necessary and appropriate in aid
of the Court's continuing jurisdiction and authority over the
Action.
The Parties and their counsel are authorized to use all reasonable
procedures in connection with approval and administration of the
Settlement that are not materially inconsistent with the
Preliminary Approval Order or the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/5kmp1 from Leagle.com.
FPI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
23CV001189 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 5, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Plaintiff Castro was employed by the Defendant as a maintenance
supervisor.
FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. is privately owned, third-party, multifamily
property management firm. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Orlando Villalba, Esq.
Helga Hakimi, Esq.
Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq.
Ryan Tish, Esq.
Alexander Wallin, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
Email: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com
Helga.Hakimi@capstonelawyers.com
Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com
Ryan.Tish@capstonelawyers.com
Alexander.Wallin@capstonelawyers.com
G.W. PHILLIPS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Barron Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JUAN BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. G.W. PHILLIPS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
and GEORGE W. PHILLIPS, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01680 (S.D.
Tex., May 5, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Barron was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker.
G.W. PHILLIPS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC. is a general contractor
that serves the Houston, TX area and specializes in project
management, demolition, concrete, general construction management,
and earthwork.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
GENESCO INC: Sends Unsolicited Texts to Consumers, Powell Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENESCO, INC. d/b/a JOURNEYS, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-23-013278 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward
Cty., May 4, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to the cellular
telephone numbers of consumers in an attempt to promote its
products and services without obtaining prior express written
consent. As a result of the Defendant's alleged conduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members were harmed.
Genesco, Inc., doing business as Journeys, is a specialty retail
company in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
GRIECO FORD: Velez Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRIECO FORD FORT LAUDERDALE, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-23-013297 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., May 4,
2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's calls and/or texts
constitute telemarketing because they were solely made to encourage
the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services.
The Defendant's calls and/or text(s) failed to disclose the name of
the individual caller and/or the entity on whose behalf the call
was made, and/or a telephone number or address at which the person
or entity may be contacted. In addition, at no point in time did
Plaintiff provide Defendant with Plaintiff's express written
invitation/consent to be contacted by the Defendant, the suit
asserts.
The Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff harm,
including invasion of privacy, aggravation, and annoyance.
Defendant's call also inconvenienced Plaintiff, caused disruptions
to Plaintiff's daily life, caused Plaintiff to waste time dealing
with Defendant's unsolicited text message calls, contends the
suit.
Grieco Ford Fort Lauderdale is a Ford automobile dealer based in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Fails to Protect Private Info, Pereira Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY A. PEREIRA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUARDIAN ANALYTICS, INC., ACTIMIZE
INC., and WEBSTER BANK, NA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02431
(D.N.J., May 3, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of
implied contract, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the private
information of their customers following a data breach on their
network systems between November 27, 2022 and January 22, 2023. The
unauthorized access occurred due to the Defendants' inadequate
security and maintenance of their computer network and system.
Furthermore, after the data breach, the Defendants failed to
provide timely notice to the affected customers, thereby
exacerbating their injuries. The Plaintiff and Class members are
now at a higher risk identity theft and other crimes, says the
suit.
Guardian Analytics, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Actimize
Inc., with its principal place of business at 221 River Street,
Hoboken, New Jersey.
Actimize Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of
business at 221 River Street, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Webster Bank, NA is a national bank, with its principal place of
business at 200 Elm Street, Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven D. Cohen, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: scohen@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Underpays Patient Care Technicians, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN SCHELHAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02466 (D.N.J., May 4, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey
Wage Theft Act.
Mr. Schelhas worked for the Defendant as a Patient Care Technician
(PCT) in New Jersey from approximately May 2014 until November
2022.
Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. is a healthcare provider based in
New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-4635
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
HAVAR INC: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Warner Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER K. WARNER, ASHLEY N. FLESHER, AND TYLER S. HARREL, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. HAVAR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01512-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, May 4, 2023) seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief from
the Defendant pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay overtime
wages; promptly pay wages; and notify eligibility for
FMLA-protected leave. Plaintiff Warner brings retaliatory claims
for taking a FMLA-protected leave to which she was entitled
pursuant to the FMLA.
Plaintiff Warner was formerly employed by Defendant as a Live-in
Direct Support Professional and a Live-in DSP Home Coordinator from
approximately June 12, 2016 until August of 2022.
Plaintiff Flesher is currently employed by the Defendant as a
regular DSP since February of 2023.
Plaintiff Harrel was formerly employed by the Defendant as a Live
in DSP from approximately July 2007 until August 2022.
Havar, Inc. is a corporation for non-profit licensed to do business
in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Jacob A. Mikalov, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
jmikalov@barkanmeizlish.com
HEIDI HEDBERG: Parties Seek to Certify Two Plaintiff Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Della Kamkoff, John
Andrew, Kayla Birch, Rose Carney, Tereresa Ferguson, Zoya Jenkins,
Troy Fender, Rhonda Conover, Autumn Ellanna, and Nataliia Moroz, on
behalf of themselves, and all those similarly situated, v. Heidi
Hedberg, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Alaska
Department of Health, Case No. 3:23-cv-00044-SLG (D. Alaska), the
Parties stipulated, agreed, and requested that pursuant to Federal
Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Court certify two plaintiff classes
defined as follows:
a. An Untimely Eligibility Class comprised of all Alaska
residents
who since January 20, 2021, have applied, are applying, or
will
apply for SNAP benefits through an initial application or an
application for recertification and did or will not receive
an
eligibility determination within the legally required
timeframes.
b. A Right to File Class comprised of all Alaska residents who
since October 1, 2022, were or will be denied the right to
file
a SNAP application the first time they contact DPA during
office hours.
The parties stipulate that these classes will remain certified
during the pendency of this litigation except in the event of a
material change in law or facts, or material amendment of the
Complaint.
The Defendant makes this agreement without admitting any of the
allegations in the Complaint or Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Parties' order dated May 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VG3U2p at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nicholas Feronti, Esq.
Goriune Dudukgian, Esq.
Jim Davis, Esq.
NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT
406 G St Suite 207
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 308-3395
E-mail: nferonti@njp-law.com
gdudukgian@njp-law.com
jdavis@njp-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lael A. Harrison, Esq.
Alex J. Hildebrand, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
Facsimile: (907) 465-3019
E-mail: lael.harrison@alaska.gov
alexander.hildebrand@alaska.gov
- and -
Saima Akhtar, Esq.
National Center for Law and Economic Justice
50 Broadway, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10004
akhtar@nclej.org
- and -
Margaret D. Craig, Esq.
Kelsey Tavares, Esq.
Christopher M. Young, Esq.
Micah A. Chavin, Esq.
Bethany M. Bunge, Esq.
DLA Piper LLP (US)
33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1447
E-mail: maggie.craig@us.dlapiper.com
kelsey.tavares@us.dlapiper.com
christopher.young@dlapiper.com
micah.chavin@us.dlapiper.com
bethany.bunge@us.dlapiper.com
HUMANA INC: Plan Participant Class Certification Sought in Moore
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENA MOORE, TIMOTHY K.
SWEENEY, RUSSEL A. HOHMAN, SUSAN M. SMITH and VERONICA CARGILL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HUMANA INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HUMANA INC., THE HUMANA
RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
3:21-cv-00232-RGJ-RSE D (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the following proposed Class:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Humana
Retirement Savings Plan, at any time between April 13, 2015
through the date of judgment;"
2. appointing them as representatives of the proposed class;
and
3. appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel for the Class.
Humana Inc. is a for-profit American health insurance company based
in Louisville, Kentucky.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44top6D at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
donr@capozziadler.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Vehicles' Peeling Paint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guillaume Rivard of The Car Guide reports that peeling paint on
Hyundai vehicles, more particularly "white" or "pearl white"
models, has been a growing problem in recent years, and now owners
have had enough.
A class action was filed on May 1 by Lambert Avocats, representing
Canadians who have purchased or leased a Hyundai vehicle on a
long-term basis in a "white" or "pearl white" colour and have
experienced peeling paint issues, also called paint delamination.
It was filed on behalf of Michel Allard, who bought a used 2017
Elantra in 2019. Just three months later, he noticed that the paint
on the hood was beginning to peel off by plates. He notified the
dealer and the problem was repaired at Hyundai's expense.
However, the following year, the same paint problem appeared in
other places, including on the front left fender and on the roof,
near the windshield. Allard claims the paint was peeling simply by
running his finger over the affected parts. He then went back to
his dealership to have his vehicle repaired, but he was refused
compensation on the ground that the initial 3-year/60,000km paint
warranty had expired.
The problem of peeling paint persists to this day and Allard
expects the entire surface of the car's roof to be peeled off by
the end of the year.
This is far from an isolated case in Canada, let alone North
America. More than 300 people in Quebec have joined a Facebook
group (French only) to share their stories.
The class action seeks payment for compensation for damage to
members' vehicles as a result of paint delamination, as well as
damages and punitive damages. No amount has been specified at this
stage. A judge in Quebec's Superior Court will evaluate the
proposed class action in the next few months and decide whether to
approve it or not.
In a similar lawsuit that was settled last year, Honda Canada was
ordered to pay up to $27 million to compensate owners of 2006-2013
Honda Civic and 2006-2011 Acura CSX sedans who have experienced
paint delamination on their car. Each one could receive up to
$2,675. [GN]
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in Icahn Enterprises? If so,
please visit Icahn Enterprises L.P. Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or
pallocco@bernlieb.com to discuss your rights.
NEW YORK, May 12, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- Bernstein Liebhard LLP
announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Icahn Enterprises L.P. ("Icahn Enterprises" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: IEP) between August 2, 2018 and May 9, 2023, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida and alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Icahn Enterprises is a master limited partnership holding company
owning subsidiaries engaged in the following operating businesses:
Investment, Energy, Automotive, Food Packaging, Real Estate, Home
Fashion and Pharma. Defendant Carl C. Icahn ("Icahn") and his
affiliates owned approximately 85% of Icahn Enterprises'
outstanding depositary units as of December 31, 2022.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
Icahn Enterprises was inflating its net asset value; (2) the
Company was using money taken in from new investors to pay out
dividends to old investors; and (3) as a result, the Company would
become the subject of criminal and/or regulatory scrutiny.
On May 2, 2023, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that Icahn Enterprises' "last reported
indicative year-end [net asset value] of $5.6 billion is inflated
by at least 22%." The report also claimed that the Company operates
a "ponzi-like economic structure" and "has been using money taken
in from new investors to pay out dividends to old investors."
On this news, Icahn Enterprises' share price fell $10.06 per share,
or 20%, to close at $40.36 per share on May 2, 2023.
Then, on May 10, 2023, before the market opened, Icahn Enterprises
filed its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the period
ended March 31, 2023. Therein, the Company stated that the U.S.
Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York contacted
Icahn Enterprises on May 3, 2023 seeking production of information
relating to the Company, certain of its affiliates' "corporate
governance, capitalization, securities offerings, dividends,
valuation, marketing materials, due diligence and other materials."
The Company claimed it is "cooperating with the request" and is
"providing documents in response to the voluntary request for
information."
On this news, Icahn Enterprises' share price fell $5.75 per share,
or 15.1%, to close at $32.22 per share on May 10, 2023.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 10, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or acquired Icahn Enterprises securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Icahn Enterprises L.P. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact
Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2023 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]
ICON BURGER: Zaharia Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
NOAH ZAHARIA, OLIVIA SPELL, and JOSEPH ROSARIO, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ICON BURGER
ACQUISITION LLC d/b/a SMASHBURGER, Defendant, Case No. 607116/2023
(N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., May 3, 2023) arises from the Defendant's
violation of New York Labor Law by paying its manual workers,
including Plaintiffs, every other week rather than on a weekly
basis.
Plaintiff Zaharia was employed by Defendant as a "front of house"
employee from March 2016 to approximately January 2018.
Plaintiff Spell was employed by Defendant as a shift manager from
approximately the Fall of 2017 to January 2018.
Plaintiff Rosario was employed by Defendant as a cook/cashier from
December 2019 to May 2020.
Icon Burger Acquisition LLC, d/b/a Smashburger, owns a chain of
hamburger restaurants that employs thousands of manual workers in
the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
IK MULTIMEDIA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Matzura
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN MATZURA, on behalf
of himself and other persons similarly situated, v. IK MULTIMEDIA
US, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03432-JPO-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial
management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
related
to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss
or
for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for
summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R.
Civ.
P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with
this
Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the
Court's website at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
Parties and counsel are cautioned:
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set
by the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p9S04L at no extra charge.[CC]
JC USA INC: Pirozzi Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE PIROZZI and ROGER MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JC USA, INC. d/b/a
Jenny Craig, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02475 (D.N.J., May 4,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the California
Labor Code, and the New Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job
Loss Notification Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the
other similarly situated former employees who worked for the
Defendant and who were allegedly terminated without cause, as part
of, or as the result of, the mass layoffs, plant closings, or
termination of a covered establishment ordered by the Defendant on
or about May 4, 2023 and within 30 days of that date, and who were
not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their termination
as required by the law.
JC USA, Inc. is a provider of weight control management options
based in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gail C. Lin, Esq.
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: gcl@raisnerroupinian.com
jar@raisnerroupinian.com
rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
JOSEPH WILLIFORD: Judge Recommends Denial of Hall Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samuel Vance Hall, II, v.
Joseph Williford, Brianna Hegeman, M. Ringgaberg, Jane Neal, Case
No. 9:23-cv-00883-SAL-MHC (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Molly H. Cherry
recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be
denied.
The Court said, "Although the Plaintiff appears to assert that
there are common issues regarding certain living conditions, his
Complaint concerns his own issues as to his alleged punishment and
conditions of confinement. These claims appear to raise claims that
are particularized to the Plaintiff's own alleged injuries as to
being exposed to a high-pitched, high-decibel sound that allegedly
exacerbated his tinnitus. Moreover, the Plaintiff is no longer at
the CCDC. Further, the Plaintiff fails to assert sufficient facts
as to commonality, which requires that there be "questions of law
or fact common to the class."
This a civil action1 filed by the Plaintiff Samuel Vance Hall, II
(the Plaintiff), a pretrial detainee. Under 28 U.S.C. section
636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial
proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned
United States Magistrate Judge.
The Plaintiff was previously a pretrial detainee at the CCDC.
However, he has submitted a change of address indicating he is now
in Ohio and thus is no longer detainee at CCDC.
The Plaintiff brings claims for violations of his constitutional
rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. He asserts claims concerning
his conditions of confinement and complains about the grievance
process. He requests declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
A copy of the Court's recommendation dated May 2, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B47OsE at no extra
charge.[CC]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Wants Judge to Deny Class Status to Epstein Accuser
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that JPMorgan Chase
& Co (JPM.N) on May 12 asked a federal judge to deny class-action
status to more than 100 women who said the bank helped enable the
late financier Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse them.
In a filing in Manhattan federal court, the largest U.S. bank said
Epstein's accusers had too many differences to sue under an
"oversimplified" theory that it was liable to all of them by having
provided Epstein with banking services.
JPMorgan said allowing a class action "skips over" how Epstein's
conduct "varied from victim to victim, and across time," and that
the bank's knowledge at the time and provision of banking services
similarly varied.
The question "is not whether Epstein's behavior was monstrous. It
was," JPMorgan said. "The question before the court is whether to
certify a class in this lawsuit. It should not."
Lawyers for the accusers did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.
Class actions let plaintiffs sue as a group, potentially allowing
greater recoveries at lower costs than if they were forced to sue
individually.
Epstein was a JPMorgan client from 1998 to 2013.
He was also a Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE) client from 2013 to 2018,
which faces a separate proposed class action by Epstein's
accusers.
In both lawsuits, the accusers have called the banks "Epstein's
secret weapon" that made his years of sexual abuse and trafficking
possible.
Both cases are scheduled for trial later this year. The banks have
denied wrongdoing.
Epstein died in August 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting
trial for sex trafficking, in what New York City's medical examiner
called a suicide.
The cases in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York, are Jane Doe 1 v Deutsche Bank AG et al, No. 22-10018, and
Jane Doe 1 v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, No. 22-10019. [GN]
KBR TECHNICAL: Mendoza Sues Over Instrument Technicians' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROMERO MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01652 (S.D. Tex., May 3, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked as an instrument specialist and instrument
technician from approximately July of 2021 to November of 2022.
KBR Technical Services, Inc. is a provider of commissioning and
inspection services, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
- and -
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (281) 885-8630
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
KIRKLAND'S INC: Faces Data Breach Suit in Georgia Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 4, 2023, that on December 14, 2022, a former
associate filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of all persons whose personal
information was compromised as a result of data security incidents
the company experienced in October 2020 and/or December 2021.
On January 25, 2023, a second putative class action complaint was
filed in the same venue by two other former associates.
Both complaints contain similar allegations and claim that the
company failed to exercise reasonable caution in securing and
safeguarding associate information. On that basis, the complaints
assert claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of
privacy, and breach of confidence.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, monetary damages, certain
injunctive relief regarding data-security measures, additional
credit-monitoring services, other equitable relief (including
disgorgement), attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest. The Northern District Court recently consolidated both
actions on March 3, 2023, and a consolidated complaint is
forthcoming.
Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home décor and furnishings based
in Tennessee.
KIRKLAND'S INC: Faces Sicard Labor Suit in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 4, 2023, that the company was named as a
defendant in a putative class action filed on August 23, 2022, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York captioned "Sicard v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc."
The complaint alleges, on behalf of Sicard and all other hourly
store employees based in New York, that Kirkland's violated New
York Labor Law Section 191 by failing to pay him and the putative
class members their wages within seven calendar days after the end
of the week in which those wages were earned, rather paying wages
on a bi-weekly basis.
Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home décor and furnishings based
in Tennessee.
KNOX COUNTY, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Benson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benson v. Knox County, et
al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04034-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LG1rjV at no extra charge.[CC]
KRAFT HEINZ: Settles Securities Class Action for $450 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Katz, writing for chief investment officer, reports that
The Kraft Heinz Co. has agreed to pay $450 million to settle a
securities class action lawsuit filed by investors, including
Swedish pension fund AP7, that alleged Kraft Heinz made materially
misleading statements related to the 2015 merger of Kraft Foods
Group Inc. and the H.J. Heinz Co. Hedick v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al.,
was filed in 2019 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, and the settlement was published on May 5.
In the complaint, the investors, with AP7 one of two lead
plaintiffs in the class, said Kraft Heinz claimed after the merger,
which was conducted by private equity firm 3G Capital, that the
merged company was seeing increased profits and margins due to
cost-cutting synergies between the combined operations.
However, by early 2017, "3G Capital's indiscriminate cost-cutting
measures had gutted the company's ability to generate revenue, and
there was no further viable cost-cutting to squeeze out of the
company," the complaint said, adding that Kraft Heinz "consistently
missed internal profitability targets by significant margins." The
plaintiffs alleged that the cost-cutting measures deteriorated
Kraft Heinz's brand value and led to a "massive" intangible asset
impairment charge.
The "fraud began to unravel through a series of three corrective
disclosures," the complaint said. The first, it said, came when
Kraft Heinz disclosed a "significant decline in earnings driven by
its failure to achieve cost-savings and the need for additional
brand investments," which Kraft Heinz said led to a nearly 10% drop
in stock price in one day. The second came, according to the
complaint, when Kraft Heinz disclosed a $15.4 billion intangible
asset impairment charge and provided earnings guidance for the
coming year that missed expectations by $1 billion.
"These disclosures led to a stock price decline of almost 28%,"
stated the complaint, which also charged that the third disclosure
made by the company revealed "further sales and earnings misses and
an additional $1.2 billion goodwill impairment charge."
In 2021, Kraft Heinz agreed to pay a $62 million fine to the
Securities and Exchange Commission for "accounting misconduct"
conducted from 2015 through 2018 that misled investors about the
merged company's earnings performance.
Under the Hedick v. Kraft Heinz Co. et al. settlement, Kraft Heinz
continues to deny any wrongdoing and denies violating U.S.
securities laws. The deal stipulates that the company is only
agreeing to the settlement in order to eliminate the "uncertainty,
burden, and expense" of a lawsuit.
Kraft Heinz said in an emailed statement that it is "pleased" that
a settlement agreement has been reached.
"From the moment the complaint was introduced we have strongly
defended against the allegations," Kraft Heinz said. "But this
resolution allows the company to focus on the future while avoiding
the continued expense, inconvenience, and uncertainties of
litigation." [GN]
KROGER CO: Eggs' Farm Fresh Label "Misleading," Long Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01179-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill., May 3, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud Acts, and
breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose, and Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
fresh eggs described by in-store labeling as "Positive Farm Fresh,"
"Farm Fresh" and "Grade A." The Defendant's in-store labeling
misled consumers, including the Plaintiff, that its eggs were from
hens that were not confined in cages. The Plaintiff seeks to
purchase eggs from hens not confined in cages because he believes
it is inhumane to the hens, harmful to the environment and
potentially a source of foodborne illness. As a result of the false
and misleading representations, the product is sold at premium
price, the suit says.
The Kroger Co. is an operator of grocery stores and chains, with a
principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, Hamilton County.
[BN]
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
KURA SUSHI: Settles Gomes Labor Suit in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended February 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 4, 2023, that on May 31, 2019, a
putative class action complaint was filed by a former employee,
Brandy Gomes, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws.
On July 9, 2020, plaintiff's counsel filed a first amended class
action complaint to add Jamar Spencer, another former employee, as
a plaintiff to this action.
In addition, the first amended class action complaint added new
causes of action alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws including a cause of action brought under the California
Private Attorney General Act. On August 7, 2020, the company filed
its answer to the first amended complaint, generally denying the
allegations in the complaint. In May 2021, a joint stipulation was
filed requesting a delay in the class certification hearing date to
March 3, 2022, and a mediation was scheduled for September 24,
2021.
During the mediation, a settlement was agreed upon in the amount of
$1.75 million. The company recorded an accrued liability of $1.78
million, including an estimated $30 thousand in employer payroll
taxes, related to this settlement within general and administrative
expenses in the statements of operations during the fiscal year
ended August 31, 2021. The court granted final approval of the
settlement on November 18, 2022.
In December 2022, pursuant to the court's order granting final
approval of the settlement, the company deposited $1.78 million
into an account controlled by a settlement administrator for
disbursement to class participants and other parties to the
litigation.
A final report regarding the distribution of settlement funds is
due on July 6, 2023, and a non-appearance case review is scheduled
for July 13, 2023.
Kura Sushi USA is a technology-enabled Japanese restaurant based in
California.
LA RUTA: Faces Ramirez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
HORTENCIA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA RUTA DEL TACO CORP., MARIANO
RAMALES, JORGE RAMALES, and CIRILO RAMALES, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-03389 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure
to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook in Queens,
New York from approximately August 2022 until April 13, 2023.
La Ruta Del Taco Corp. is a restaurant owner and operator, with its
principal place of business located at 92-18 Jamaica Ave., Queens,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
LAZER SPOT: Has Until May 24 to Oppose Conditional Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORNELIUS JOHNSON AND
JAMES STRICKLAND, v. LAZER SPOT, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01852-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Mark H. Cohen
entered an order granting consent motion for extension of time for
defendant to file its brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion
for conditional certification.
Pursuant to the agreement of the Parties, and for good cause shown,
the Court hereby grants Defendant’s motion and extends the
deadline for Defendant to file its brief in opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification up to and
through May 24, 2023.
Lazer Spot provides yard management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HIU7Dc at no extra charge.[CC]
LAZER SPOT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Brief
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORNELIUS JOHNSON AND
JAMES STRICKLAND, v. LAZER SPOT, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01852-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order extending the time for it to file its Reply Brief in
Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment up to and through May
24, 2023.
On April 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for
conditional certification and supporting briefing. On April 27,
2023, counsel for the Parties conferred. Given the prior
commitments of Defendant and its counsel, the Plaintiffs consented
to Lazer Spot's request for an additional 14 days to submit its
brief in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification.
Lazer Spot provides yard management services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vz25UV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
afrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
Adeash Lakraj, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
E-mail: alakraj@theleachfirm.com
cleach@theleachfirm.com
yhernandez@theleachfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brett C. Bartlett, Esq.
Cary R. Burke, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 885-1500
Facsimile: (404) 892-7065
E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com
caburke@seyfarth.com
LEGACY HEALTH: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 15, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hunter v. Legacy Health,
et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02219 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeff
Armistead entered an order on motion for extension of Discovery &
PTO Deadlines as follow:
1. Discovery related to certification of Dec. 29, 2023
a class action and decertification of
any conditionally certified Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective
action due by:
2. The Plaintiff's motion for class Feb. 15, 2024
certification, and the Defendants'
motion for Decertification of
FLSA collective action are to be
filed on or before:
3. Any oppositions to those motions are due six weeks after the
respective moving papers are filed.
4. Replies in support of their motions are due six weeks after
the
respective oppositions are filed.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act --
Maximum Hours.
Legacy Health is a non-profit hospital system located in Portland,
Oregon, United States. It consists of six primary-care hospitals, a
children's hospital, and allied clinics and outpatient
facilities.[CC]
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Amick Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. Bradley Amick and
Taylor Kitchens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. Lexington County, Case No. 3:23-cv-00336-CMC (D.S.C.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion for class certification.
The proposed class is defined as:
"All eligible employees employed by Lexington County who
performed
essential work between January 27, 2020, and March 20, 2022,
that
left employment with Lexington County prior to May 13, 2022, and
did not receive premium pay for essential work performed during
the
COVID-19 public health emergency."
If the Court chose to not certify, it would force each individual
eligible employee of Lexington County performing essential work
during the COVID-19 pandemic who left his or her employment with
the County before May 13, 2022, to file the exact same lawsuit
seeking the exact same relief. This is the exact waste of time and
effort a class action is meant to avoid, the Plaintiffs contend.
This is a class action brought against Defendant Lexington County
by former Lexington County employees who were eligible employees
performing essential work for the County during the COVID-19
pandemic pursuant to federal law, regulations, and guidance.
Defendant Lexington County withheld premium payment by requiring
Plaintiffs and the proposed class be on the payroll on specific
dates arbitrarily chosen by Defendant in order to receive both
tranche payments of COVID-19 premium pay. The facts of this case
remain undisputed, rather the question in this case is one of
statutory interpretation: whether Defendant Lexington County
improperly withheld premium pay to Plaintiffs and the class.
Lexington County is a county located in the U.S. state of South
Carolina.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/416jwNU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Haltiwanger, Esq.
Brady R. Thomas, Esq.
Grace M. Babcock, Esq.
RICHARDSON, THOMAS, LLC
1513 Hampton Street, First Floor
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 281-8150
E-mail: dan@richardsonthomas.com
brady@richardsonthomas.com
grace@richardsonthomas.com
LOLA & SOTO: Drummond Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
NESHA DRUMMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOLA & SOTO BUSINESS GROUP, INC. D/B/A MISS
LOLA, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-013243 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud.
Cir., Broward Cty., May 3, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to the cellular
telephone numbers of consumers in an attempt to promote its
products and services without obtaining prior express written
consent. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and
Class members were harmed, the suit claims.
Lola & Soto Business Group, Inc., doing business as Miss Lola, is a
retail company in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
E-mail: Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
M & MZ INC: Villalobos Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL VILLALOBOS, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. M & MZ, INC.
d/b/a VILLA MARIA, and MARIA ZAINO, individually, and JOSEPHINA
SILVIA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03386 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 4, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from August
2013 until approximately November 2016, and then again from August
2019 until November 28, 2022. He alleges the Defedants' failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours
compensation, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements and
wage notices.
M & MZ, Inc. operates as an Italian restaurant in East Rockaway,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lauren R. Reznick, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
M&T BANK: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for June 1
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00897 (D. Del.),
Hon. Judge Evan J. Wallach entered an order that oral argument
regarding supplemental briefing 189, 190, 191, 192, 196, 199, 200,
201, 202, and 203 on the outstanding motion for class certification
and Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Opinions of M. Travis
Keath and David DeRosa will be held on June 1, 2023.
The parties shall direct any requests or questions regarding the
scheduling or management of this case to Ben Champion, Law Clerk,
at champiob@cafc.uscourts.gov.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
M&T Bank is an American bank holding company headquartered in
Buffalo, New York.[CC]
MAHARAJA PALACE: Faces Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO ORTIZ GATICA and DIEGO LOPEZ MORALES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAHARAJA
PALACE RESTAURANT CORP (D/B/A MAHARAJA PALACE) and MOHAMMED BASHAR,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03717-RA (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
spread of hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to
reimburse business expenses.
Plaintiffs Ortiz and Lopez were employed by the Defendants as
delivery workers from approximately May 2008 until January 30, 2023
and from approximately January 15, 2019, until February 24, 2020,
respectively.
Maharaja Palace Restaurant Corp, doing business as Maharaja Palace,
is an owner and operator of an Indian restaurant, located at 2113
Frederick Douglass Blvd., New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MATERION CORP: Hearing on Final Settlement OK in Lucyk Set for July
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Materion Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Northern District of Ohio
scheduled final settlement approval hearing for the Lucyk class
suit in July 2023.
On October 14, 2020, Garett Lucyk, et al. v. Materion Brush Inc.,
et. al., case number 20CV0234, a wage and hour purported collective
and class action, was filed in the Northern District of Ohio
against the Company and its subsidiary, Materion Brush Inc.
(collectively, the Company).
Plaintiff, a former hourly production employee at the Company's
Elmore, Ohio facility, alleges, among other things, that he and
other similarly situated employees nationwide are not paid for all
time they spend donning and doffing personal protective equipment
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.
Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification, which the
Company opposed.
On August 2, 2022, the Court conditionally certified a class of
employees at the Company's Elmore facility only and rejected
certification of a class across the Company's other facilities.
In November 2022, the parties reached a settlement for an
immaterial amount.
The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on March 30, 2023
and set a final approval hearing for July 2023.
Materion Corporation is an integrated producer of engineered
materials based in Ohio.
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Maxar Class Suit Agreement for Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies 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 3, 2023, that the agreement reached
by parties in the putative Maxar class suit is subject for approval
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust
Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
("Colorado Action"), naming Maxar and members of management as
defendants alleging, among other things, that the Company's public
disclosures were deficient in violation of the federal securities
laws and seeking monetary damages.
On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members of
management in connection with the Company’s public disclosures
between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's statements
regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO
communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or
misleading during the class period.
On September 11, 2020, the court granted in part, and denied in
part, defendants' motion to dismiss.
On July 16, 2021, the court in the Colorado Action certified a
class consisting of investors who purchased or acquired Maxar stock
between May 9, 2018 and October 30, 2018, inclusive.
The parties have reached an agreement to resolve the action on a
class-wide basis for a one-time payment of $27 million, to be
funded by insurance maintained by Maxar.
The Company recorded a liability of $27 million within Other
current liabilities and an asset within Other current assets on the
Company's Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The agreement is contingent on Court approval.
Maxar is a provider of comprehensive space solutions and secure,
precise, geospatial intelligence.[BN]
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: McCurdy Class Suit Agreement for Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies 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 3, 2023, that the putative McCurdy
class suit agreement is subject to the approval of the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.
On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et
al., No. 19CV35070 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar and certain members
of management and the Board of Directors as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act in connection with the Company's June 2, 2017
Registration Statement and Prospectus ("Offering Materials") filed
in anticipation of its October 5, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe,
Inc. ("DigitalGlobe Merger").
On April 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging the same causes of action against the same set of
defendants as set forth in his original complaint.
The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual
allegations as the Colorado Action.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company's statements
regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those
related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or
misleading when made.
On January 24, 2021, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
defendants’ motion to dismiss.
On August 20, 2021, the court certified a class consisting of
investors who acquired Maxar stock in exchange for DigitalGlobe
stock pursuant to the Offering Materials issued in connection with
the DigitalGlobe Merger.
The parties have reached an agreement to resolve the action on a
class-wide basis for a one-time payment of $37 million, to be
funded by insurance maintained by Maxar.
The Company recorded a liability of $37 million within Other
current liabilities and an asset within Other current assets on the
Company's Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The agreement is contingent on Court approval.
As part of the Court approval process, class members will have an
opportunity to object to, or opt-out of, the settlement pursuant to
procedures to be established by the Court.
Maxar is a provider of comprehensive space solutions and secure,
precise, geospatial intelligence.[BN]
META PLATFORMS: Butler County Vo-Tech School to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Trizzino, writing for Cranberry Eagle, reports that the
Butler County Area Vocational-Technical School joint operating
committee has joined a class-action lawsuit against social media
companies, including Meta Platforms, Facebook Holdings, Snap,
TikTok, YouTube and others.
Regina Hiler, executive director of the vo-tech school, said the
"students' mental health is the center of this lawsuit.
"Recent research has shown that social media has negative effects
on mental health," Hiler said, "including increased anxiety,
depression, loneliness, thoughts of self-harm and suicide, fear of
missing out, cyberbullying … and the list goes on."
The lawsuit maintains that accessibility to these applications, as
well as increasing exposure to negative content on them, has had a
direct effect on students' mental health over the years, said Mark
Gross, superintendent of Mars Area School District.
There is no cost for the district to participate in the lawsuit.
Other business
In other business, the committee also appointed Nina Teff, a member
of the Butler Area School District school board, to serve as board
treasurer, after the resignation of former treasurer Bill Halle.
Hiler said the vote to appoint Teff to the position was unanimous.
[GN]
MOBILE FIDELITY: Judge Rebuffs Complaints Over Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Blistein, writing for RollingStone, reports that a judge has
rebuffed complaints over the proposed settlement reached in the
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab (MoFi) class action lawsuit, which sprung
out of a major audiophile controversy last year.
Last summer, MoFi came under fire for its "Original Master
Recording" and "Ultradisc One Step" vinyl series, which the company
said were made from either original master recordings or analog
tapes. But in July 2022, a record store owner in Phoenix shared a
video on YouTube claiming MoFi was actually using digital files to
make its records.
Though there was some initial pushback, engineers at MoFi
eventually confirmed the allegations, sending shockwaves through
record collector circles. Albums made from analog tapes or original
master recordings are considered to sound better than those that
incorporate digital files into the mastering process because the
former are as close to the original audio recording as one can get.
A class action lawsuit filed in Aug. 2022 argued that even the most
advanced, high-quality analog-to-digital transfer "diminishes the
quality and collectability compared to all-analog recordings."
Earlier this year, MoFi and the plaintiffs reached a settlement
expected to be worth about $25 million that offered customers a few
routes to recompense: They could get a full refund for any eligible
records they purchased or keep the albums and take either a 5% cash
refund or a 10% MoFi credit refund. (The reason some may want to
take the partial refund? Despite the audio quality concerns, it's
been noted in court documents that many of these MoFi releases now
"have a value on the secondary market that exceeds their original
purchase price.")
After the settlement was reached, however, a few plaintiffs filed a
motion complaining the deal was unfair and provided "inadequate
relief." They also took issue with the lawyers tapped to negotiate
the settlement, claiming the proposed settlement was the product of
a "reverse auction" -- basically alleging that MoFi went looking
for "ineffectual" class lawyers who just wanted a fee and would
negotiate a more favorable settlement.
However, the judge overseeing the case rejected all of the
intervenors' arguments. He called the proposed settlement itself
"fair, adequate, and reasonable" and said there was no evidence of
"reverse auction" collusion with the lawyers who negotiated with
MoFi (and that the fees they collected did "not appear to be
overly-generous or disproportionate to the relief allocated to the
class.")
MoFi's lead counsel, Joseph J. Madonia tells Rolling Stone, "As
always, MoFi continues in its commitment to provide the
best-sounding records and listening experience possible. We
appreciate the Court's decision that there was no collusion,
improper activity, or reverse auction in reaching a very fair
settlement."
Duncan C. Turner, the class lawyer who negotiated the settlement
with MoFi, shared a statement with Rolling Stone: "We are pleased
that Judge Robart granted preliminary approval to our settlement
over the objections of the intervenors. There was never any
substance to the intervenors' made-up collusion story. The
settlement terms are sound and fair, so we will be turning our
attention to executing the notice program and getting the class
members their compensation." [GN]
MY PILLOW: Bid to Exclude Grieser Opinion Tossed in Deutsch
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Deutsch,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
v. My Pillow, Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-00318-SRN-ECW (D. Minn.), the
Hon. Judge Susan Richard Nelson entered an order:
1. The My Pillow's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of
Plaintiff's Expert Brian C. Grieser is denied.
2. This matter is set to be tried on Monday, July 31, 2023 in
Courtroom 7B, Warren E. Burger Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse, 316 N. Robert St., St. Paul, MN 55101. A trial
order
will be issued separately forthwith.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Mr. Grieser's analysis
consists of more than basic math as it may inform the question of
whether it would have been administratively difficult for My Pillow
to observe and calculate, in 2019, the amount of computer time CCRs
expended prior to clocking in.
As with his testimony concerning the 2022 time study, Mr. Grieser's
testimony regarding the Lyons video may be relevant to My Pillow's
potential de minimis defense. Moreover, as to the calculation of
Lyons’ clock-in time, Mr. Grieser's testimony need not be
excluded simply because it constitutes basic math.
The Court incorporates by reference its discussion of the
background of this litigation in its April 26, 2023 order that
addressed the parties' cross motions for summary judgment and
plaintiffs’ class
certification motion.
My Pillow is a Minnesota corporation that manufacturers pillows and
other products. The Plaintiffs are a group of current and former My
Pillow employees who worked as customer service representatives and
sales representatives, known as "call center representatives, " or
"CCRs, " at My Pillow's Chaska, Minnesota call center between 2017
and 2020.
My Pillow is a pillow manufacturing company known for its eponymous
patented pillow.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42thOHh 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
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
NATURES PATH: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 1, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLLY BROWN, et al., v.
NATURES PATH FOODS, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-05132-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order setting the
following deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16
and Civil Local Rule 16-10:
Event Deadline
Amendment of Pleadings/ Joinder June 2, 2023
Deadline to File Motion for Class Feb. 1, 2024
Certification and Opening Class
Certification Expert Reports
Deadline to File Opposition to Motion Apr. 11, 2024
for Class Certification and Rebuttal
Class Certification Expert Reports
Deadline to File Reply in Support May 23, 2024
of Motion for Class Certification
and to File Reply Expert Reports
Class Certification Motion and Daubert June 13, 2024
Motion Hearing Deadline
Nature's Path is a privately held, family-owned producer of
certified organic foods.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VxK9tU at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Wins Bids for Judgment in Uviles Overdetention Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOEL UVILES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NEW YORK and ANTHONY J.
ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner for the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision, in his official capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-3911 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M.
Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York:
(a) grants the Defendants' motions for summary judgment; and
(b) denies the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Due to a combination of administrative errors, the Plaintiff was
held in custody on a parole warrant for 17 days longer than he
should have been. Contending that the policies and practices of the
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
("State Parole") and the New York City Department of Corrections
("City Corrections") caused his over-detention, he has brought the
putative class action for false imprisonment under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 and Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Svcs. of the City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), seeking injunctive relief against State
Parole and injunctive relief and damages against City Corrections.
The Plaintiff, the State Parole, and the City Corrections have each
moved for summary judgment.
On Dec. 21, 2017, the Plaintiff began his parole supervision after
serving time on a prior conviction. On May 22, 2018, he incurred a
fresh arrest by New York City police officers on a domestic
relations matter involving an alleged assault.
The State Parole received notice of the arrest that same day, and a
parole officer, Johnny Ortiz, conferred with the NYPD arresting
officer. Parole Officer Ortiz then passed on what he had learned to
Senior Parole Officer Scanlon (first name not given by the
parties), and SPO Scanlon issued a parole warrant based on the
underlying criminal charges. The State Parole sent copies of the
warrant to the precinct out of which the arresting NYPD officer
worked, and to the arraignment part of the Brooklyn Criminal Court,
the court in which the Plaintiff had been charged.
The Plaintiff was arraigned in Brooklyn Criminal Court on May 23,
2018 on both felony and misdemeanor charges of assault and robbery.
The court set a $7,500 cash bail that the Plaintiff was unable to
post. He was then sent to Rikers Island and thus came into the
custody of City Corrections. On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff
appeared in court again. The court dismissed the felony charges and
reduced the Plaintiff's bail on the remaining misdemeanor charges
to $2,500 cash and a $1,500 bond.
The Plaintiff's Parole Officer, Legenda von Evans, was on vacation
at the time of the Plaintiff's arrest. After returning from
vacation on June 4, 2018, she began an investigation into the
alleged parole violation. The Plaintiff was not served with a
Violation of Release Report ("VORR"), which details the charges
against him, or a Notice of Violation, which schedules a
preliminary parole revocation proceeding and gives the parolee the
option to waive that proceeding.
On June 7, 2018, SPO Hogan prepared paperwork recommending that the
Plaintiff not be declared delinquent and that the parole warrant be
lifted, writing that although Parole Officer Ortiz had issued a
warrant for a parole violation on the date of the Plaintiff's
arrest on the criminal charges, the Plaintiff was not served with
the violation of release report within the required timeframe.
Therefore, they are submitting a cancelation of delinquency due to
non-curable service defect.
The Plaintiff made bail on the criminal charges on June 12, 2018.
However, he was not released from Rikers Island because he
continued to be held on the parole warrant. At that point, the
Plaintiff, his family, and his attorneys called and emailed the
State Parole and the City Corrections more than once trying to get
him released. They were told variously that the necessary person to
sign off for State Parole was on vacation or that there was a
mix-up with the paperwork. In response to these efforts, the City
Corrections officers tried informally to get State Parole to lift
the warrant, but they could not release the Plaintiff, or at least
believed they could not release him, until the State Parole had in
fact lifted the warrant.
On June 26th, staff from the Board of Parole advised Parole Officer
Von Evans and Supervising Parole Officer Hogan that the
recommendation package they had submitted was incomplete. To
dismiss the parole violation charge and vacate the warrant, the
Board still needed a VORR, whether a timely hearing had been held
or not. SPO Hogan sent the VORR to the Board that same day. Three
days later, on June 29th, the three Board of Parole members signed
off, and the Plaintiff was released. The Brooklyn Criminal Court
dismissed the criminal charges against him some months later.
The Plaintiff commenced the action on July 8, 2019. He seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a class under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against State Parole, through its
Acting Commissioner of State Corrections, Anthony J. Annuci,
declaring unlawful and enjoining the State's "policies, customs,
and practices authorizing incarceration of parolees without valid
parole warrants and adherence to the legal and constitutional
requirements for alleged parole violations. He seeks that same
relief against the City, plus damages for the period of his
wrongful imprisonment.
Discovery closed at the end of March 2021. In early April 2021, in
accordance with the Court's individual practice rules, each party
-- the Plaintiff, the State Parole, and the City Corrections --
sought leave to move for summary judgment. The Plaintiff also
requested leave to move for class certification.
The Court held a premotion conference on April 15, 2021. The
parties discussed with the Court the strengths and weaknesses of
the proposed motions, and then the Court turned to scheduling
motion dates. In view of the number of issues and arguments that
the parties wanted to raise on summary judgment, the Court inquired
of the Plaintiff whether it might be advisable to defer the class
certification motion until the determination of the summary
judgment motions.
The summary judgment motions were fully submitted on June 5, 2021.
By the time the motions were submitted, the Plaintiff was no longer
on parole, as his term ended on Jan. 11, 2021 without further
incident.
First, the State Parole contends that the Plaintiff's claim for
injunctive relief is moot. It points out that the Plaintiff has no
stake in the injunctive relief he seeks because he is no longer in
custody or on parole.
Judge Cogan holds that because Article III requires a case or
controversy, this is not a matter of the Court's discretion. The
claims against Annuci, seeking only prospective injunctive relief,
are dismissed as moot. In addition, the Plaintiff's claim for the
same injunctive relief against the City Corrections is no less
moot, and that claim is dismissed as well.
The Plaintiff seeks damages for wrongful imprisonment for the 17
days between when he paid bail on June 12, 2018 to when he was
released from custody on June 29, 2018. He is, however, seeking
damages against the City Corrections under Monell for an unlawful
policy or practice. The City Corrections argues that it is entitled
to share in State Parole's sovereign immunity because in holding
plaintiff in custody, it was performing a mandatory duty imposed by
New York law, and thus it acted only as a non-discretionary agent
of the State.
Judge Cogan holds that the City Corrections will retain custody of
any parolee held on a parole violation warrant until the State
Parole lifts the warrant, regardless of whether line-level City
Corrections officers have reason to know that the warrant is
invalid. The only difference is that the voluntary nature of
compliance with this policy and practice fatally undermines the
City Corrections' contention that it is entitled to sovereign
immunity as the agent of the State. It has made its own choice as
to whether to apply that policy to a situation when it knows or
should know that the warrant is invalid, even though the State
Parole has not completed the ministerial act of lifting it.
In determining whether the policy and practice of the City
Corrections and the State Parole violates the Fourth Amendment,
Judge Cogan again have to carefully define the issue. The
Plaintiff's argument is entirely predicated on the state law
requirement to hold a preliminary hearing on the parole warrant
within 15 days of the warrant's execution.
Judge Cogan holds that Morrisey does not create a hard and fast
rule of what is too long, but rather requires a balancing test that
considers all of the facts and circumstances of the parolee's
particular case. This means that violation of the 15-day
requirement in Exec. Law Section 259-i does not automatically
render the warrant void for purposes of a Section 1983 claim, nor
does it automatically give rise to a false imprisonment action.
Where the Plaintiff's 17-day overdetention was due solely to human
error within State Parole, there is no constitutional violation.
Judge Cogan then holds that the Plaintiff's claim also fails
because, to meet the test under Monell, although the policy at
issue need not be the sole cause of the constitutional deprivation,
a plaintiff must demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct,
the governmental entity was the 'moving force' behind the injury
alleged. He finds that the Plaintiff's overdetention was not
directly caused by the policy of not releasing a parolee until the
parole warrant is formally lifted. The Plaintiff has not produced
sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find a widespread and
persistent pattern of unconstitutional conduct.
Moreover, Judge Cogan says there is no alternative policy and
practice concerning this area of overlapping governmental
responsibilities that would be immune from the kind of human error
that happened. The fact that it did not work for the Plaintiff on
one occasion shows no flaw in the policy and practice. Again, if
the Plaintiff had shown that the application of these policies is
rife with error and lead to repeated unwarranted detentions, then
these agencies would have notice that they (or a court in the
absence of action by them), must come up with something better.
That is not the case on the record.
For these reasons, Judge Cogan grants the Defendants' motions for
summary judgment and denies the Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, dismissing the
case.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://rb.gy/s4vuk from Leagle.com.
NEW YORK: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Disability Rights New York
v. The State of New York, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-06965
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf entered an order
referring motion to certify class filed by Disability Rights New
York to Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry for a report and
recommendations.
The nature of suit states American with Disabilities Act.
New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York
City and towering Niagara Falls.[CC]
NEW YORK: Courts OKs Caballero Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONAS CABALLERO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Case No.
9:20-cv-01470-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd
entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted.
2. The Plaintiff's claims are certified as a Rule 23(b)(3) class
action on behalf of a class defined as all persons who: (a)
were
incarcerated in DOCCS custody; (b) DOCCS excluded from Shock
on
the basis that they were designated OMH Level 3 at any time
between December 2, 2017, and November 3, 2021; (c) were not
judicially ordered to be enrolled in Shock by their
sentencing
court; (d) were statutorily eligible to enroll in Shock; and
(e)
DOCCS did not offer an alternative six-month pathway to early
release from prison.
3. The Named plaintiff Jonas Caballero is appointed as class
plaintiff.
4. The law firm of Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP is
appointed
as class counsel.
Caballero moves to certify the putative class and DOCCS opposes.
The motion has been fully briefed and the Court now considers it on
the basis of the parties' submissions without oral argument.
Shock is a six-month boot-camp-style program that stresses a
structured routine of discipline, regimentation, exercise, and work
therapy while also providing substance abuse treatment, education,
and life skills counseling to prison inmates.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42a1zzs at no extra charge.[CC]
NOBULL LLC: Faces Mueller Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOBULL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
23-006826-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., May 4, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
To promote its goods and services, the Defendant allegedly engages
in telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's
telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class members
harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory
damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, says
the suit.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
unlawful actions of Defendant.
Nobull, LLC is a shoe and apparel retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Mislabels Haircare Products, Smith Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03787 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023) is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the State Consumer Protection
Statues and New York's General Business Law arising from alleged
false labeling claims, advertising matter, or oral or written
statements of its hair growth products.
According to the complaint, the Defendant markets its products in a
systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting that they are
legally sold as "Dietary Supplements" and claiming that the
products are "clinically proven" to improve "hair growth" and
prevent "shedding." Unbeknownst to consumers, however, Defendant's
products are not, in fact, "clinically proven" -- as evidenced by
the deeply flawed studies that Defendant relied on in making those
statements. To make matters worse, the Defendant labels its
products as "hair growth" products which makes them unapproved
drugs, and otherwise makes improper disease claims without mandated
disclaimers next to its marketing statements in violation of the
Food and Drug Administration regulations. As such, the products are
considered unapproved and misbranded "new drugs" under the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act which are illegal to sell and worthless,
says the suit.
As a result of its alleged deceptive conduct, Defendant is, and
continues to be, unjustly enriched at the expense of its customers,
including Plaintiff, the suit asserts.
Nutraceutical Wellness manufactures, markets, and sells the hair
growth products throughout New York and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
New York, NY 10111
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Court OK's Settlement in Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors 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 3, 2023, that the Court
approved the settlement in the securities class suit on April 25,
2023.
The Company and certain of its officers, C. Taylor Pickett, Robert
O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth, are defendants in a purported
securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Securities Class
Action").
Brought by lead plaintiff Royce Setzer and additional plaintiff
Earl Holtzman, the Securities Class Action purports to assert
claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and seeks monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of
attorneys and experts, and other relief.
The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated
the Exchange Act by making materially false and/or misleading
statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including the
financial and operating results of one of the Company's operators,
the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the
impairment of certain of the Company's leases and the
uncollectibility of certain receivables.
The plaintiffs and defendants reached an agreement in principle on
a settlement of the Securities Class Action and thereafter executed
a stipulation of settlement dated December 9, 2022 ("Settlement").
On April 25, 2023, following notice to class members and a hearing,
the Court entered judgment approving the Settlement, which becomes
effective upon the expiration of the period for appealing the
Court's judgment.
Upon the effective date of the Settlement, the Settlement payment
of $30.75 million will be transmitted from an escrow account funded
by the Company's directors and officers insurers to a settlement
fund to be distributed to class members by a third party
administrator.
The Settlement does not include any admission of wrongdoing or
liability on the part of the Company or the individual defendants.
It provides for dismissal and release of all claims against the
defendants by a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities from February 8, 2017 through
October 31, 2017.
The Company recorded a $31 million legal reserve related to the
Securities Class Action in the third quarter of 2022, which is
included within accrued expenses and other liabilities on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets.
As the Settlement proceeds are being paid by insurance, the Company
concurrently recorded a receivable for $31 million within other
assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet, and consequently there is
no impact to the Consolidated Statements of Operations related to
this matter.
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is into real estate investment
trusts based in Maryland.
ONE BROOKLYN: Sutherland Sues Over Illegal Access of Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOYIELLE SUTHERLAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH, Defendant,
Case No. 513223/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 3, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, violation of the New York General Business Law,
breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment,
and injunctive and declaratory relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the
personally identifying information (PII) and personal health
information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients
following a data breach on its network systems between July 9, 2022
and November 19, 2022. The unauthorized access occurred due to the
Defendant's inadequate security and maintenance of its network.
Furthermore, after the data breach, the Defendant failed to provide
timely notice to the affected patients, thereby exacerbating their
injuries. The Plaintiff and Class members are now at a higher risk
identity theft and other crimes, says the suit.
One Brooklyn Health is a healthcare provider in Brooklyn, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicky J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
- and -
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
OUR LADY OF THE LAKE: Faces Class Suit Over 2022 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Danner of San Antonio Express News reports that Our Lady of
the Lake University is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit over
a data breach that let hackers access the personal information of
tens of thousands of individuals last year.
The action was filed last month by Ana Vasquez, a Texas resident
who applied for admission to the university in 2019 but never
enrolled. She filed the complaint on behalf of herself and "others
similarly situated."
Total damages sought are more than $1 million, though each of the
plaintiff's individual damages are less than $75,000.
The private Catholic university issued a public notice of the data
breach March 31 -- a week after the San Antonio Express-News first
reported it.
BREACH NOTICE: Our Lady of the Lake University says it notified
victims of data breach; won't disclose other info
Nearly 42,000 individuals were affected, according to a posting on
the Maine attorney general's website.
That includes 27,568 Texas residents, according to a notice on the
Texas attorney general's data breach security reports website.
Hacked information included names, addresses, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport
numbers, credit and debit card information and medical data.
A spokeswoman said the university cannot comment on pending
litigation. It has yet to answer the lawsuit, filed April 21 in
state District Court in San Antonio.
The suit alleges the university on San Antonio's West Side failed
to protect individuals' personally identifiable information" and
"failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive
information."
The data was compromised because of Our Lady of the Lake's
"negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure
to protect students' sensitive data," the complaint adds.
Citing Boerne-based IT consulting firm BetterCyber Consulting Group
LLC and Breachsense, an Ohio-based data breach monitoring platform,
the Express-News reported last month that the ransomware group
AvosLocker claimed that it had hacked into the university's
network. AvosLocker has been linked to various online attacks at
colleges, most recently at Bluefield University in Virginia.
Our Lady of the Lake said in its March 31 notice that it found
"unauthorized access" to its network about Aug. 30 and "immediately
launched an investigation in consultation with outside
cybersecurity professionals" to examine the breach and analyze
compromised information. It didn't say how hackers gained access to
the network.
The university said its investigation, which ended March 3, found
that a "limited amount of personal information was removed" from
its network.
"To date, we are not aware of any reports of identity fraud or
improper use of any information as a direct result of this
incident," it said in the notification.
But Vasquez, the plaintiff, says she suffered injury -- including
about $295 in fraudulent charges to her credit card last month,
invasion of her privacy and loss of time related to mitigating the
risk of identity theft.
The lawsuit raises the possibility that Vasquez's and other
victim's information was sold on the so-called dark web. Personal
information can be sold at prices ranging from $40 to $200, while
access to entire company data breaches can sell for as much as
$4,500, the suit adds.
The lawsuit also questions why it took the university more than six
months to give notice of the breach after it was detected. It also
criticizes Our Lady of the Lake's offer of 12 months of identity
monitoring to those affected -- given that victims of data breaches
commonly face multiple years of ongoing identity theft and medical
and financial fraud.
The lawsuit seeks to have the university take steps to protect
those affected, including requiring it to engage independent
security auditors and internal security personnel to conduct
testing, including simulation attacks, and audits of its systems on
a periodic basis and to correct any problems detected.
A lawyer for Vasquez didn't respond to a request for comment. Her
causes of action include negligence, breach of implied contract and
unjust enrichment. [GN]
OUTCO INC: Andrews Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outco, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Rosa Andrews, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Outco, Inc., Dan Klos,
David Hopper, Does 1 To 20, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23606285 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 3, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Wrongful Discharge."
Outco, Inc. -- https://www.outco.io/ -- is the career accelerator
for software engineers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald D. Arena, Esq.
ARENA HOFFMAN LLP
220 Montgomery St., Ste. 905
San Francisco, CA 94104-3471
Phone: 415-433-1062
Fax: 415-520-0446
Email: rarena@arenahoffman.com
PALMCO ENERGY: Brown Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
TINOLLA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PALMCO ENERGY IL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-03390 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of sending unsolicited telemarketing calls to the cellular
telephone numbers of consumers in an attempt to promote its
products and services without obtaining prior express written
consent. As a result of the Defendant's alleged conduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members were harmed.
Palmco Energy IL LLC is an energy company headquartered in
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
COLEMAN PLLC
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Pasman Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC PASSMAN and ISHMAEL
ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11711-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order that the
Defendant's motion to strike is denied and Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is denied.
The Plaintiffs bring this 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 in the State of New York."
Because the Court finds that the parties' letter motions to seal
are consistent with the Court's prior sealing orders, the motions
to seal are granted.
Because the Court finds the individual issues predominate over
common ones, it concludes that Named the Plaintiffs have not
established that the purported class satisfies the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).
The Plaintiffs bring this 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 (Peloton Bike) and treadmills (Peloton Tread)
online, over the phone, and in showrooms.
Peloton is an American exercise equipment and media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42h6iPU at no extra charge.[CC]
PETER THOMAS: Faces Munoz Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
CIEARA MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETER THOMAS ROTH LABS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-03475 (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2023) alleges violation of the
Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that when someone watches a
video on www.peterthomasroth.com (the "Website"), the Defendant
reports the "viewing event" to TikTok, which is owned by ByteDance
Ltd.
The Plaintiff and Class members did not provide the Defendant with
any form of consent, written or otherwise, to disclose their PII to
third parties, specifically the People's Republic of China, the
suit alleges.
PETER THOMAS ROTH LABS LLC provides personal care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Settlement Requires Repair, Install Curb Ramps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Mancini of PhillyVoice reports that Philadelphia has to
install or repair at least 10,000 curb ramps on city sidewalks
within the next 15 years as part of a federal class action
settlement reached between city officials and a group of disabled
residents who sued the city over its barrier-riddled sidewalks over
three years ago.
United States District Court Judge Harvey Bartle III approved the
settlement last week, resolving claims that the city's sidewalks
contained barriers that were in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Advocates and plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit believe that the agreement provides substantial long-term
improvements to the city's pedestrian infrastructure and enhances
access to jobs, education and community life for Philadelphia
residents with disabilities that impact their mobility.
As part of the settlement, the city must install or repair at least
10,000 curb ramps, hitting 2,000-ramp milestones every three years.
All of the ramps must be repaired or installed within the next 15
years, according to the agreement. Curb ramps must be installed
wherever they're missing, while existing ones must be fixed if they
are noncompliant, particularly when the city constructs or alters a
new street with a pedestrian walkway.
Once installed, the curb ramps must be routinely maintained in
order to ensure that they are ADA-compliant and in working
condition. The city will start a Curb Ramp Request System, which
allows residents to request an installation, repair or remediation
at any crosswalk identified in the settlement. Each request must be
investigated and fulfilled as quickly as possible, under the
settlement.
Progress on the installation or remediation projects for each
crosswalk will be posted on the city's website as part of the
agreement. The city will also pay $1.1 million in attorney fees to
the plaintiffs, which include individual disabled residents and
disability rights advocate groups like Disabled in Action of
Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Adapt.
"This settlement marks the beginning of holding the city of
Philadelphia responsible for accessible sidewalks," plaintiff Tony
Brooks said in a press release. "I am happy that the city has
committed to installing, fixing, and maintaining curb ramps in
communities in which we live, making sidewalks safer for the
disabled community throughout Philadelphia."
The case was first settled in October, with Bartle granting
preliminary approval and sending notice to city officials. Now that
the settlement agreement is finalized, Philly must begin fulfilling
its obligations without any further objections from either party,
according to Disability Rights Advocates, a nonprofit legal center
that will monitor the city's compliance with the agreement over the
15-year settlement period.
In his court memorandum, Bartle noted data from the United States
Census Bureau that indicates more than 143,000
non-institutionalized Philly residents have an ambulatory
disability and more than 49,000 residents have a vision-related
disability. For wheelchair users navigating city streets,
inaccessible sidewalks and crosswalks make it easy to waste time
doubling back or taking detours in the city. In some cases,
wheelchair users have no choice but to travel in the street
alongside cars, WHYY reported.
As a result of those issues, four disabled residents and three
disability rights organizations filed the suit against the city in
2019, alleging that Philly "discriminates against residents and
visitors with disabilities that affect their mobility by failing to
make its sidewalks and pedestrian routes accessible to people who
use wheelchairs or are blind."
A lack of curb ramps -- or insufficient or unsafe ramps -- was
cited as one of several issues faced by disabled residents.
Additional issues detailed in the class action lawsuit included
sloping and crumbling sidewalks, unsafe alternative routes during
construction zones and snow piles that block sidewalk access.
The court found that this was not the first time the city has faced
legal action for inaccessible sidewalks. In 1993, Kinney v.
Yerusalim found the city liable for its lack of accessible
sidewalks, and the city regularly upgraded its curb ramps and curb
cuts until 2014, when a new city program allowed the city to make
upgrades only when residents requested them.
"Barrier free access is a civil right that for far too long has not
been achieved in the city of Philadelphia," Tom Earle, CEO of
Liberty Resources, Inc., one of the plaintiffs, said in a press
release. "Judge Bartle's approval of our ADA class action
settlement will provide a strong framework to safely improve curb
ramp access at thousands of intersections, corners and sidewalks
throughout all neighborhoods in our city."
As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs have agreed to discharge
all claims, allegations and complaints made about the city's
response to accessible sidewalks and its compliance with the ADA.
[GN]
PLURALSIGHT INC: Must Oppose IPRS Class Cert Bid by Sept. 8
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT
SYSTEM and PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF
CHICAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PLURALSIGHT, INC.; AARON SKONNARD; and JAMES BUDGE,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00128-DBB-DAO (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Daphne A.
Oberg entered an order granting stipulated motion to extend the
deadlines relating to plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and the deadline to move to amend pleadings or to add parties:
-- The deadline for the Defendants to file July 13, 2023
an opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification is extended to:
-- The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file September 8,
2023
a reply is extended to:
-- The deadline to file a motion to amend September 18,
2023
pleadings or to add parties is extended
to:
Pluralsight is an American privately held online education company
that offers a variety of video training courses for software
developers, IT administrators, and creative professionals through
its website.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nAW1in at no extra charge.[CC]
PLURALSIGHT INC: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT
SYSTEM and PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF
CHICAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PLURALSIGHT, INC.; AARON SKONNARD; and JAMES BUDGE,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00128-DBB-DAO (D. Utah), the Parties stipulate and
jointly move the Court to extend the:
-- deadline for Defendants to file an opposition to Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment
of
Class Representatives and Class Counsel;
-- the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply in support of
the
Motion for Class Certification;
-- the deadline to file a motion to add parties, and the
deadline
to file a motion to amend pleadings.
The Parties include the Lead Plaintiffs the Indiana Public
Retirement System and the Public School Teachers' Pension and
Retirement Fund of Chicago and Defendants Pluralsight, Inc., Aaron
Skonnard, and James Budge.
The Parties request the Court enter an order extending the deadline
for Defendants to file an opposition until July 13, 2023, and
Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply until September 8, 2023.
Additionally, pursuant to the Amended Scheduling Order, the
deadline to file a motion to add parties and the deadline to file a
motion to amend pleadings are July 7, 2023.
The Parties request the Court enter an order extending these
deadlines to September 18, 2023. The parties state that good cause
for this request exists because the parties are participating in a
mediation on May 31, 2023, and the Parties are focusing efforts on
preparing for
that mediation.
Pluralsight is a technology learning platform for software
developers, IT admins, and creative professionals.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nwII2q at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
Steven J. Toll , Esq.
Jan Messerschmidt, Esq.
William Wilder, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 357-0370
Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
stoll@cohenmilstein.com
wwilder@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Keith M. Woodwell, Esq.
CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS, P.C.
201 South Main Street, Suite 1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 322-2516
Facsimile: (801) 521-6280
E-mail: kmw@clydesnow.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory L. Watts, Esq.
Stephanie L. Jensen, Esq.
Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 883-2500
E-mail: gwatts@wsgr.com
sjensen@wsgr.com
isalceda@wsgr.com
PROPARK AMERICA: Webber Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY BLAKE WEBBER, on behalf of the general public as private
attorney general, Plaintiff v. PROPARK AMERICA WEST, LLC, a
Connecticut Limited Liability Company and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV10075 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
May 4, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violations of various
provisions of the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants implemented policies and
practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: (a)
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, (b) failure to provide
meal periods, (c) failure to provide rest periods, (d) failure to
pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendants'
employ, (e) failure to pay wages timely during employment, (f)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (g) failure
to reimburse necessary business expenses, (h) conversion, and (i)
failure to produce employment documents requested by Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in August 2021 as a
non-exempt employee with the title of Supervisor and worked during
the liability period for Defendant, at Defendant's Burbank,
California location until Plaintiff's separation in approximately
March 2022.
Propark America West, LLC is a Connecticut Limited Liability
Company that operates as a hotel and hospitality business. The
Company operates numerous locations in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
RALPH LAUREN: S.D. New York Tosses Miramontes Consumer Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLORIA MIRAMONTES, Individually, and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-04192 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Colleen
McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses the
Plaintiff's Complaint with costs to the Defendant.
Miramontes's attorney has a habit of bringing consumer fraud class
actions against Ralph Lauren Corp. in federal courts -- taking
advantage of the generous jurisdictional provision of the Class
Actions Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). Thus
far, the Plaintiff's counsel's efforts to sue Ralph Lauren for
having an allegedly insufficient amount (less than 100%) of Pima
cotton in its Pima cotton sweaters have been rebuffed in the Middle
District of Florida and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. This is
the counsel's second try at suing in this court; a motion to
dismiss a first filed action nearly identical to this one (although
brought on behalf of a different plaintiff) is presently pending
before Judge Paul G. Gardephe.
The Plaintiff is a resident of El Paso, Texas. The Defendant is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
On Nov. 9, 2019, the Plaintiff bought a "women's burgundy
lightweight V-neck sweater" at The Polo Factory Store in in
Canutillo, Texas, just outside of El Paso. She fails to plead what
she paid for the sweater, except to say that it cost no less than
$39.99. The neck tag on the sweater said, "WASHABLE PIMA COTTON."
The Product's hangtags did not represent that the sweater was made
of 100% Pima Cotton.
According to the Complaint, different types of cotton are
distinguished by their different characteristics, such as strength,
softness, and fiber length. However, the main criteria to identify
the type of cotton is the fiber length. Pima cotton is alleged to
be a "type of extra-long staple ('ELS') cotton with a range of 1.2
inches to 1.48 inches. The Complaint alleges that, Pima cotton
products are costlier than those made of shorter types of cotton.
The Plaintiff did not buy the sweater because she needed something
to wear. Rather, she (and her attorney) submitted it for testing to
determine the length of its cotton fibers, as well as the types and
amounts of cottons contained in the Product. The Plaintiff's
counsel had the sweater tested using the Single-Fiber Test
developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials. The
test results, which are summarized in something called the "TexTest
Report," showed that all of the cotton fibers in the sweater were
shorter than 1.20 inches. But that did not mean there was no Pima
cotton in the sweater.
Indeed, an expert retained by the Plaintiff's attorney, Dr. Sabit
Adenur, reviewed the TexTest Report and opined that as much as 62%
of the fibers in the sweater could have been Pima cotton,
accounting for the 25% fiber shortening that occurs during the
manufacturing process. The Plaintiff pleaded no fact supporting her
"suggestion" that, contrary to the opinion of her expert, it was
unlikely" that the fibers in the sweater shrank by that amount
during the manufacturing process.
The Plaintiff alleges that she believed and expected the Product
contained cotton that was only Pima cotton, because the neck tag
stated Pima cotton and the hang tag described only Pima cotton, and
failed to mention any other fiber that was in the sweater. She
asserts she was injured by her reliance on the Defendant's
purported representation that the Product was constructed
exclusively of Pima cotton. She states she either would not have
purchased the Product if she knew the representations and omissions
were false and misleading or would have paid less for it. She
alleges that the Product was worth less than what she paid and she
would not have paid as much absence the Defendant's false and
misleading statements and omissions.
The Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action, all of which are
premised on her allegation that the sweater was comprised of, at
the very most, 62% Pima cotton, when the Product purports to be
only Pima Cotton. She also seeks to certify two classes -- a Texas
Class and the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class -- on behalf of
other consumers who purchased these sweaters, either in Texas or in
other states.
As mentioned, the Plaintiff's counsel has filed three other
putative class action lawsuits, in federal courts in New York,
Florida, and Wisconsin, in which the named plaintiff alleges that
RLC misleadingly labeled its cotton products as being entirely
constructed from Pima cotton when they were in fact not. The
Plaintiff's counsel discontinued two of those lawsuits -- one
shortly after an order was entered dismissing the case with leave
to refile an amended complaint, and one shortly after RLC filed a
motion to dismiss. In the third lawsuit, which is presently pending
before Judge Gardephe, the plaintiff is a New Jersey resident who
purchased a RLC sweater in New York; in that case, the plaintiff's
expert concluded that the product at issue contained just 7% Pima
cotton -- Carter v. Ralph Lauren Corp., No. 1:21-cv-01202-PGG
(S.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 10, 2021).
Each of the plaintiff's in the Carter, Ross, and Cota cases either
actually lived in the state whose consumer protection law was
invoked or bought the allegedly mislabeled products in the state
whose consumer protection law was invoked. In the case at bar,
however, Miramontes, who resides in Texas and purchased the Product
in Texas, has sued in New York, alleging a violation of New York's
consumer protection law. It seems that her purchase took place
outside the two-year statute of limitations that applies to claims
brought under the relevant consumer protection law in Texas. So
instead she sues under New York law, ostensibly on the theory that,
as New York is where the Defendant's principal place of business is
located, its consumer protection law applies to her purchase.
In addition to pursuing her own claim, Miramontes seeks to
represent two classes of purchasers of the Product (this specific,
women's burgundy V-neck sweater) -- one consisting of individuals
who, like the Plaintiff, purchased the Product in Texas, and the
other consisting of individuals who purchased the Product in one of
the following 19 states: New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire,
Indiana, Virginia, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Vermont,
Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, Delaware, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Arkansas, South Carolina, and Utah. Miramontes does not allege that
she bought an RLC Pima cotton sweater in any of those states.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a
claim, failure to plead fraud with particularity, and for failure
to establish a certifiable class, pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 9(b), and 12(f).
Taking the Plaintiff's assertion that the Product contained less
than 100% Pima cotton as true, Judge McMahon holds that none of the
facts pleaded shows that the pleader is entitled to relief on any
of her nine possible theories of recovery.
The Plaintiff's claims rest on the proposition that RLC has
misrepresented that its Product was made of 100% Pima cotton when
it was not. However, the Plaintiff concedes that, the Defendant is
technically correct that the Complaint cannot point to any
representation that the Product contained 100% Pima cotton or that
it is 'made entirely from' this variety. Instead, she insists that
the failure to mention any other product led her reasonably to
"understand" that the product was 100% Pima, rather than a cotton
blend. In short, she pleads fraud and misrepresentation by
omission.
First, Judge McMahon finds that the allegations does not satisfy
the territoriality requirement of the GBL's consumer protection
laws. New York courts routinely dismiss cases like this one, in
which out-of-state transactions form the basis of a complaint under
the GBL, at the pleading stage. The Plaintiff's claims meet with
the same fate. As there is no way for the Plaintiff to amend her
Complaint to assert a claim under GBL Sections 349 and 350, Counts
I and II are dismissed with prejudice.
Second, Judge McMahon holds that the Plaintiff -- who has the
burden to plead facts showing that she has standing to bring class
representative claims under the consumer fraud statutes of the 18
states identified -- has utterly failed to plead any facts
indicating that she may do so. Texas is the only state under whose
consumer protection laws the Plaintiff could have sued. She chose
not to do so at a time when she might have brought such an action;
the statute of limitations, extended to its uttermost, bars her
from doing so today. For these reasons, all of the purported
representative and class claims asserted by the Plaintiff (or, if
not exactly asserted, as to which she "reserves her right" to
assert) are dismissed with prejudice.
Third, Judge McMahon holds that the Plaintiff fails to state a
claim under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Additionally, the term
"implied warranty" is defined as an implied warranty arising under
State law in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer
product. As shown previously, both implied warranty claims alleged
fail as a matter of New York law. Therefore, the Plaintiff has no
viable claim under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act for this reason
as well. As no amendment could possibly cure these defects, Count
VI -- the Plaintiff's only federal claim -- is dismissed with
prejudice.
Finally, Judge McMahon holds that (i) the Plaintiff's negligent
misrepresentation claim, Count VII, is dismissed with prejudice
because the tort claims are barred as the Plaintiff economic loss
is the basis of her contracts claims and tort claims; (ii) the
fraud claim, Count VIII, is dismissed with prejudice because the
Plaintiff pleads no fact tending to show that the sweater was not
washable; and (iii) the claim for unjust enrichment, Count IX, is
dismissed with prejudice because it cannot be maintained as it is
based on the same allegations as the Plaintiff's other tort and
contract claims.
For the reasons she discusses, Judge McMahon grants the motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice and with costs
to the Defendant.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. It is a
written opinion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motions at Docket Number 11.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://rb.gy/fgsdi from Leagle.com.
REALPAGE INC: Artificially Raised Rental Prices, Blosser Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH BLOSSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC.; THOMA BRAVO, L.P.; AVENUE5
RESIDENTIAL LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL
REALTY, LLC; ASSET LIVING, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CORTLAND
PROPERTIES, INC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.;
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN PROPERTIES, LLC;
RPM LIVING LLC; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00445 (M.D. Tenn., May 4, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have formed a cartel in
the multifamily residential apartment building market in the U.S.
to artificially inflate the rental prices of apartment units above
competitive levels. To facilitate this unlawful scheme, the
Apartment Management Defendants provide RealPage and, through
RealPage, one another—with highly sensitive and confidential
competitive information on a daily basis, including detailed
real-time data regarding pricing, inventory, occupancy rates, and
unit types that are or will be coming available to rent, among
other things. The Apartment Management Defendants do so with the
knowledge, provided by RealPage, that their competitors are also
exchanging their real-time confidential information. Pursuant to
the conspiracy, the Apartment Management Defendants have outsourced
their pricing decision-making and formed a cartel, restraining
competition and resulting in high supracompetitive rents. Rather
than compete, the Defendants are choosing to collude, the suit
contends.
RealPage, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Richardson,
Texas.
Thoma Bravo L.P. is a private equity firm with its principal place
of business in Miami, Florida.
Avenue5 Residential, LLC is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
BH Management Services, LLC is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate with its headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa.
Alliance Residential Realty, LLC is a company that manages
apartment units, headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Asset Living, LLC is an apartment management company headquartered
in Houston, Texas.
Camden Property Trust is a real estate trust headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
Cortland Properties, Inc., is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in New York, New York.
Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC is a manager of multifamily
rental real estate headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina.
Highmark Residential, LLC is a manager of residential apartments,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Lincoln Property Company is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. is a manager of multifamily
rental real estate headquartered in Germantown, Tennessee.
Morgan Properties, LLC is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
RPM Living LLC is a manager of multifamily rental real estate
headquartered in Austin, Texas.
Security Properties Inc. is a company that manages apartment units,
headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq.
T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
J. Grant LaBar, Esq.
FRAZER PLC
30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 647-6464
E-mail: roe@frazer.law
trey@frazer.law
grant@frazer.law
- and -
Steve Beal, Esq.
Lena Beal, Esq.
22 Monroe Ave.
Lexington, TN 38351
Telephone: (731)968-9077
- and -
Archie C. Lamb, Jr., Esq.
ARCHIE LAMB AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
101 E. Romana St. #211
Pensacola, FL 32502
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Badalamenti Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resideo Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending April 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend the Badalamenti putative class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey
On September 16, 2022, Salvatore Badalamenti ("Plaintiff") filed a
putative class action lawsuit (the "Badalamenti Lawsuit") in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Honeywell International Inc. and the Company.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company violated
certain consumer protection laws by falsely advertising the
Company's combination-listed single data-bus burglar and fire
alarms system control units (the "Products") as conforming to
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (the "UL") or the National Fire
Protection Association ("NFPA") standards and/or failing to
disclose such nonconformance.
Plaintiff further alleges that the Products are defective because
they do not conform to the UL and NFPA industry standards.
Plaintiff does not allege that he, or anyone else, has experienced
any adverse event due to the alleged product defect or that the
Products did not work. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice
Act.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of other persons in
the U.S. who purchased the Products. Plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and the putative class, seeks damages in an unknown amount,
which he describes as the cost to repair and/or replace the
Products and/or the diminution in value of the Products.
The Company believes it has strong defenses against the allegations
and claims asserted in the Badalamenti Lawsuit and its motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint was fully briefed on March 3, 2023.
It continues to defend the matter vigorously; however, there can be
no assurance that it will be successful in such defense.
Resideo is a global manufacturer and developer of
technology-driven
products and solutions that provide critical comfort, residential
thermal and security solutions to over 150 million homes globally.
SANTA CLARA: Skurauskis Sues Over Illegal Access of Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARIANA SKURAUSKIS, RENEE ROGERS, and NOAH ROGERS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SANTA
CLARA FAMILY HEALTH PLAN and NATIONSBENEFITS HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-60830 (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, violations of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment/quasi contract, breach of
confidence, and injunctive and declaratory relief.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the
personally identifying information (PII) and personal health
information (PHI) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
customers following a data breach on their network systems on or
about January 30, 2023 or earlier. The unauthorized access occurred
due to the Defendants' inadequate security and maintenance of its
computer network. Furthermore, after the data breach, the Defendant
failed to provide timely notice to the affected members, thereby
exacerbating their injuries. The Plaintiffs and Class members are
now at a higher risk identity theft and other crimes, says the
suit.
Santa Clara Family Health Plan is a community-based health plan
located in San Jose, California.
NationsBenefits Holdings, LLC is a provider of supplemental
benefits administration services to several health plans, doing
business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica Wallace, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: jwallace@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
SAVE MART: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due March 22, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE BAKER, et al.,
v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, Case No. 3:22-cv-04645-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
Hon. Judge William H. Orrick, III entered an order regarding class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
The Parties have conferred and agreed to the following schedule for
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
Motion March 22, 2024
Opposition April 21, 2024
Reply May 12, 2024
Hearing May 29, 2024
Save Mart is an American grocery store operator founded and
headquartered in Modesto, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nBYcSD at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
Michelle A. Lamy, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
275 Battery St. Fl. 29
San Francisco CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
- and -
James P. Keenley, Esq.
Emily A. Bolt, Esq.
BOLT KEENLEY KIM LLP
2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite 517
Berkeley CA 94705
Telephone: (510) 225-0696
Facsimile: (510) 225-1095
- and -
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
Manhattan Beach CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael B. Slade, Esq.
E-mail: mslade@kirkland.com
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Faces Cabo Suit Over Crypto Currency Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
LEANDRO CABO; ERICA LEEDS; KATHY BIBBY; SEAN FLOOD; and VARDAN
BALAYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC; ARMANINO
LLP; and PRAGER METIS CPAS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02222
(N.D. Cal., May 5, 2023) alleges that the Defendants were involved
in a fraudulent scheme designed to take advantage of
unsophisticated investors from across the globe, including in
California, who utilize smartphone and tablet applications to make
and monitor their investments.
According to the complaint, investors trusted former FTX CEO, Sam
Bankman-Fried and invested with FTX Trading LTD d/b/a FTX and West
Realm Shires Services Inc. d/b/a FTX US because they believed that
it was a "safe place" for their monies. FTX and Bankman-Fried used
investors' money to cover Alameda's liabilities and to support
Bankman-Fried's opulent lifestyle. The Defendants in this case
funded FTX at early stages, promoted the company to investors,
legitimized FTX's fraudulent financial statements, and ultimately
furthered Bankman-Fried's and FTX's fraud. Without the Defendants'
misconduct, FTX and Bankman-Fried could not have carried out the
fraud that has caused a national financial disaster, says the
suit.
SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC operates as a venture capital firm.
The Firm invests in energy, financial services, healthcare,
internet, mobile, outsourcing, and technology sectors. Sequoia
Capital Operations serves clients worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
K. Rachel Lanier, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
2829 Townsgate Rd Suite 100
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
Email: Rachel.Lanier@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
Alex J. Brown, Esq.
John Davis LaBarre, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N
Houston, TX 77064
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
Alex.Brown@lanierlawfirm.com
Davis.LaBarre@lanierlawfirm.com
SKILL ZONE: Underpays Customer Service Representatives, Mathis Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA MATHIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SKILL ZONE USA, LLC and PREDOMINANT SKILLZ,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00234-JDK (E.D. Tex., May 3,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Mathis worked for the Defendants as counter help/customer
service representatives.
Skill Zone USA, LLC is an operator of game rooms located at 108
Chinquapin Hallsville, Texas.
Predominant Skillz, LLC is an operator of game rooms located at
1005 West Cotton Street, Longview, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Telephone: (512) 799-2048
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
SOTERA HEALTH: Continues to Defend Michigan Fund Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Sotera Health Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Michigan Funds stockholder class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
On January 24, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
against the Company, its directors, certain senior executives, the
Company's private equity stockholders and the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO") in November 2020 and the
Company's secondary public offering ("SPO") in March 2021.
On April 17, 2023 the court appointed the Oakland County Employees'
Retirement System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary
Association, and Wayne County Employees' Retirement System (the
"Michigan Funds") to serve as lead plaintiff to prosecute claims on
behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who acquired shares of
the Company in connection with our IPO or SPO or between November
20, 2020 and September 19, 2022 (the "Proposed Class").
The Michigan Funds allege that statements made regarding the safety
of the Company's use of EO and/or the litigation and other risks of
its EO operations violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (when made in the registration statements
for the IPO and SPO) and violated Sections 10(b), Section 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (when made in
subsequent securities filings and other contexts).
The Michigan Funds seek damages and other relief on behalf of the
Proposed Class.
The Company believes that these claims are without merit and plans
to mount a vigorous defense.
SOTERA HEALTH COMPANY provides health care services. The Company
offers integrated health and sterilization services with the
scientific expertise of Nelson Labs, Nordion, and Sterigenics.
[BN]
SPACE COAST: Gonzalez Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-013292 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., May 4, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
a consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to the
Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the
Plaintiff's time zone. However, the Defendant did not have the
Plaintiff's consent to communicate with him between the hours of
9:00 PM and 8.00 AM. Accordingly, Defendant violated Section
559.72(17) of the FCCPA, says the suit.
Space Coast Credit Union Financial Services is a state-chartered
credit union headquartered in Melbourne, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
SPEAR WILDERMAN: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
Pennsylvania man has filed a class action lawsuit against
Philadelphia law firm Spear Wilderman PC, alleging the company's
failings led to a data breach.
Plaintiff Jerome Raniell filed the class action lawsuit against
Spear Wilderman PC on April 14 in a Pennsylvania federal court,
alleging negligence.
According to the lawsuit, the labor and employment firm failed to
safeguard confidential data which led to a 2021 breach that exposed
the personal information of tens of thousands of clients, witnesses
and others connected to cases the firm has handled.
To detail the alleged negligence, Raniell said the company did not
use "basic security measures," such as password protection for its
databases.
"[Spear Wilderman] maintained the private information in a reckless
and negligent manner. In particular, the private information was
maintained on a database that was not password protected and
therefore accessible to any member of the public," Raniell said.
"Foreseeably, cybercriminals exploited this obvious vulnerability,
exfiltrated [Raniell's] and class members' private information from
the database, and then listed this information for sale on the dark
web."
The plaintiff—who did not state his relationship to the
company—said he had money stolen from his bank account after the
breach.
Firm delayed telling affected parties, lawsuit states
The breach allegedly occurred in May 2021, however Raniell says he
wasn't notified of it until last November, about 18 months after it
occurred.
The firm told him the stolen data could include his driver's
license and passport number, date of birth, Social Security number,
and medical and financial information.
The breach was reported to at least four state governments,
including Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware and Massachusetts. Raniell
says the theft of his information has devalued it and will leave
him and other potential class members "at risk of identity theft
and fraud for the remainder of their lifetimes."
Raniell seeks to represent anyone in the U.S. who was affected by
the data breach.
He is suing for negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty and unjust enrichment and seeks damages, fees, costs, a jury
trial and an order requiring Spear Wilderman institute stronger
data security measures.
Raniell is represented by Charles E. Schaffer and Nicholas J. Elia
of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Joseph M. Lyon of The Lyon Law
Firm PC.
Were you affected by the Spear Wilderman data breach? Let us know
in the comments!
The Spear Wilderman lawsuit is Raniell v. Spear Wilderman PC, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01442, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. [GN]
STEM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 11
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Stem, Inc. ("Stem" or the "Company") f/k/a Star
Peak Energy Transition Corp. ("STPK") (NYSE: STEM; STEM.WS; STPK;
STPK.WS; STPK.U), and certain officers and directors. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, and docketed under 23-cv-02329, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Stem securities:
(a) pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined
below) issued in connection with the merger ("Merger") consummated
on April 28, 2021 by and among the Company, STPK Merger Sub Corp.
("Merger Sub"), and Stem, Inc., a private Delaware corporation
("Legacy Stem"); and/or (b) between March 4, 2021 and February 16,
2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Stem
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
issued in connection with the Merger, and/or during the Class
Period, you have until July 11, 2023 to ask the Court to appoint
you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Stem purports to operate as a digitally connected and intelligent
energy storage network provider in the U.S. and internationally.
The Company offers energy storage systems sourced from original
equipment manufacturers and provides an artificial intelligence
("AI") platform called Athena, which offers battery hardware and
software-enabled services to operate the energy storage systems.
The Company's management has asserted that Stem's services revenue
line is purportedly comprised entirely of software revenue. Prior
to the Merger, the Company operated as a publicly traded special
purpose acquisition company.
On December 4, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into
a definitive agreement for the Merger with Legacy Stem, a purported
global leader in AI-driven clean energy storage systems, that would
result in a combined company with an estimated equity value of
approximately $1.35 billion.
On December 17, 2020, the Company filed a registration statement
("Registration Statement") on Form S-4 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Merger, which,
after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on
March 29, 2021.
On March 30, 2021, the Company filed a joint prospectus and proxy
statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration
Statement, the "Offering Documents") on Form 424B3 with the SEC in
connection with the Merger, which incorporated and formed part of
the Registration Statement.
On April 28, 2021, the Company consummated the Merger whereby,
among other things, Merger Sub merged with and into Legacy Stem,
with Legacy Stem surviving the transaction as a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company; the Company renamed itself "Stem, Inc.";
and the Company began operating Legacy Stem's business.
Leading up to and following the Merger, Stem repeatedly represented
that its unique AI-driven approach to energy storage management and
related software products and offerings, which it offered alongside
its hardware products and offerings, afforded the Company
significant competitive advantages in attracting and retaining
business partners and customers, and that these advantages
differentiated Stem's business from its competitors.
On February 24, 2022, Stem issued a press release announcing that
it had entered into a strategic partnership with Available Power
("AP"), a purported developer of distributed energy resources and
microgrid systems for commercial and industrial real estate, with a
" [v]alue of award expected to exceed $500 million across the
project portfolio " and that " provide[d] Stem exclusive rights to
100 standalone energy storage projects in Texas " (emphases in
original). Stem attributed the partnership win to its Athena
software, thereby apparently validating Stem's narrative that its
unique AI-driven approach to energy storage management
differentiated the Company from competitors and would lead to
significant growth and earnings.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Legacy Stem suffered from material weaknesses in internal
control over financial reporting related to accounting for deferred
cost of goods sold and inventory, certain revenue recognition
calculations, and internal-use capitalized software calculations;
(ii) the Company had overstated Legacy Stem's and its own
post-Merger business and financial prospects; (iii) Stem's software
revenue did not make up 100% of the Company's services revenue;
(iv) Stem had overstated the benefits expected to flow from its AP
partnership; and (v) as a result, the Offering Documents and
Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.
On March 15, 2021, in an SEC filing, the Company revealed that
Legacy Stem suffered from various previously undisclosed material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related
to, inter alia, "accounting for . . . deferred cost of goods sold
and inventory," "the review of certain revenue recognition
calculations," and "the review of internal-use capitalized software
calculations."
On this news, Stem's stock price fell $1.19 per share, or 3.36%, to
close at $34.24 per share on March 15, 2021.
On February 24, 2022, Stem reported its fourth quarter ("4Q") and
full year ("FY") 2021 financial results. Among other items, Stem
reported FY 2021 earnings per share ("EPS") of -$0.96, missing
consensus estimates by $0.05, as well as FY 2021 revenue of $127.37
million, missing consensus estimates by $19.58 million.
On this news, Stem's stock price fell $2.43 per share, or 21.62%,
to close at $8.81 per share on February 25, 2022.
On January 5, 2023, Stem released an investor presentation deck
that it had prepared in connection with its attendance at the
Goldman Sachs Global Energy and Clean Technology Conference,
wherein the Company revealed that its 2022 bookings backlog was
"partially offset by [a] Stem-initiated contract cancellation
(~$130M) due to partner non-performance on [an] agreed timeline".
Following release of the investor presentation deck, Stem's stock
price fell $0.75 per share, or 8.78%, to close at $7.79 per share
on January 5, 2023.
On January 11, 2023, Blue Orca Capital ("Blue Orca") issued a
report alleging various additional undisclosed issues with Stem's
business and financial prospects, including, among other things,
that the Company had overstated its software revenues by falsely
claiming that 100% of its services revenue line was attributable to
software revenues.
On January 12, 2023, Stem issued a response to the Blue Orca
report, purporting to refute Blue Orca's claims regarding, inter
alia, the Company's software revenues. In doing so, however, the
Company never expressly refuted Blue Orca's claims that software
revenue did not make up 100% of the Company's services revenue.
Separately, Stem's response to the Blue Orca report clarified that
the Company's "canceled . . . booking of approximately $135 million
in the fourth quarter of 2022"—as first disclosed in Stem's
January 5, 2023 investor presentation deck—was "attributable
solely to DevCo projects with [AP]" and that "[w]e have not
recorded any revenue from any [AP] projects and there are no
additional projects in the backlog with this former partner."
Then, on February 16, 2023, Stem reported its 4Q 2022 results and
2023 guidance. Among other items, the Company reported 4Q revenue
of $156 million, versus consensus estimates of $166 million, and
issued disappointing FY 2023 revenue guidance of $550 million to
$650 million, which was mostly below consensus estimates of $647
million.
On this news, Stem's stock price fell $1.44 per share, or 14.78%,
to close at $8.30 per share on February 17, 2023—a 69.32%decline
from the Company's first post-Merger closing stock price of $27.05
per share on April 29, 2021 (the "Initial Closing Price").
As of the time the complaint was filed, Stem's common stock was
trading significantly below its Initial Closing Price and continues
to trade below its initial value from the Merger, damaging
investors.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
TANDEM DIABETES: Continues to Defend Deluna Consolidated Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tandem Diabetes Care 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 3, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Deluna consolidated class suit in the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San
Bernardino.
In May 2020, the Company was named as a defendant in three
California state court class action lawsuits arising from a
phishing incident that occurred in January 2020. Collectively,
these lawsuits sought statutory, compensatory, actual, and punitive
damages; equitable relief, including restitution; pre- and
post-judgment interest; injunctive relief; and attorney fees,
costs, and expenses from the Company.
On July 24, 2020, these three lawsuits were consolidated into a
single case in the Superior Court of the State of California in the
County of San Bernardino entitled Joseph Deluna et al. v. Tandem
Diabetes Care, Inc. The consolidated case alleged violations of the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), CCPA,
California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and breach of
contract.
The Company filed a demurrer on all claims, which was heard by the
Court on October 20, 2020, and the demurrer to the CCPA claim was
sustained.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 7,
2022 and we filed a motion for summary adjudication on the CMIA
claim on April 7, 2022.
On February 8, 2023, the Court granted plaintiffs' request to
dismiss their remaining two claims with prejudice, and dismissed
the motion for class certification, thereby terminating the case in
the Superior Court.
On March 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
Court’s order granting the Company's motion for summary
adjudication.
Although the Company intends to vigorously defend against this
claim, there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. is a public US medical device
manufacturer based in San Diego, CA. The company develops medical
technologies for the treatment of diabetes and specifically
insulin
infusion therapy.
TCHDALLAS2 LLC: Underpays Card Dealers, Meine Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN MEINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TCHDALLAS2, LLC d/b/a TEXAS CARD HOUSE, and
RYAN CROW, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00968-K (N.D. Tex., May 3,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
appropriate minimum wages due to illegal tip pool and illegal tip
distribution in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a card dealer at the Texas Card House
located at 11834 Harry Hines Blvd., Suite 135, Dallas, Texas.
TCHDallas2, LLC, doing business as Texas Card House, is an owner
and operator of a private social club located in Dallas, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. Botros, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com
TD BANK: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-23-013291 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward
Cty., May 4, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
sending debt collection communication to the Plaintiff between 9:00
PM and 8:00 AM without prior consent in violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.
TD Bank, National Association is a banking company based in
Portland, Maine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
shannon@jibraellaw.com
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Refused to Give Refunds, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Hanley, writing for IQ, reports that Mexico's federal
consumer protection office Profeco has reported that a Mexico City
judge has admitted a class action lawsuit against Ticketmaster and
promoter Ocesa.
The Live Nation companies are subject to multiple claims from
consumers that have accumulated since 2021, alleging various
breaches such as unilateral cancellation of tickets, breach of
conditions and refusal to give full refunds, including service
charges.
The Ninth District Judge in Civil Matters of the country's capital,
Guillermo Campos Osorio, described the lawsuit filed by Profeco as
"admissible" and gave the green light to the collective action,
which currently represents 521 consumers.
"These situations reflect a general breach in the provision of the
entertainment service regarding various musical, cultural,
sporting, artistic and recreational events, violating the rights of
consumers," reads a Profeco press release.
"This collective action is a watershed in the defence of the right
to use, enjoy and enjoy cultural and entertainment services,
endorsing Profeco's commitment to eradicate abuses and asymmetries
by these service providers."
PROFECO IS INVITING OTHER AFFECTED CONSUMERS TO COME FORWARD AND
JOIN THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The organisation is inviting other consumers "affected or affected
by the cancellation of your tickets, denial of access or refund of
your money for the cancellation to attend any cultural, sports or
entertainment event during the period from 2021 to date" to come
forward and join the lawsuit.
Earlier this year, Ticketmaster Mexico provided refunds and
additional compensation after more than 2,000 fans were denied
entry to a Bad Bunny concert at Mexico City's Azteca Stadium.
The company reported that problems occurred "due to failures in its
ticket reading system" at the first of two dates at the venue by
the Puerto Rican rapper, in addition to "an unprecedented number of
fake tickets". Ticketmaster avoided being fined as it has refunded
the full price of the ticket, plus 20% compensation, to those
affected, with the total amounting to almost 18.2 million pesos
(EUR914,000).
Ticketmaster Mexico announced the appointment of Ana María Arroyo
as its new director, replacing the long-serving Lorenza Baz, in the
wake of the controversy. [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Trial of Class Suit in Australia Set for 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies 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 3, 2023, that the Supreme Court of
Victoria, Australia will commence the trial of the breach of
transport legislation class suit in March 2024.
In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in
the taxi, hire-car, and limousine industries.
The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure
the group members during the period 2014 to 2017 by either directly
breaching transport legislation or commissioning offenses against
transport legislation by UberX Drivers in Australia.
The claim alleges, in effect, that these operations caused loss and
damage to the class representative and class members, including
lost income and decreased value of certain taxi licenses.
The Company denies these allegations and intends to continue to
vigorously defend against the lawsuit.
A trial has been scheduled to commence in March 2024.
Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary
technology applications that enable independent providers of
ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to
transact with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Core Platform and Other Bets.
The company was formerly known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its
name to Uber Technologies,
Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
UDEMY INC: Final Approval of Williams Settlement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Udemy 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 3, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has not given final approval of the
Williams class suit settlement.
On August 23, 2021, a putative class action complaint captioned
Williams v. Udemy, Inc., Case No. 3:21-CV-06489, was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging violations of California's unfair competition
and false advertising statutes as well as the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act in connection with our pricing practices.
The complaint sought injunctive relief, unspecified damages,
restitution and disgorgement of profits.
On December 13, 2022, the parties entered into a definitive
settlement agreement for an immaterial amount.
On April 21, 2023, the court preliminarily approved the settlement
agreement.
Final approval of the settlement agreement is still pending as of
the date of this report.
Udemy Inc. is a two-sided marketplace where instructors develop
content to meet learner demand where courses can be accessed
through direct-to-consumer platforms.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Cantinieri Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics 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 3, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Cantinieri class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Cantinieri brought a
putative class action against Verisk Analytics, Insurance Services
Office and ISO Claims Services, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, titled Cantinieri v.
Verisk Analytics Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-6911.
The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to safeguard the
personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff and the
members of the proposed classes from a purported breach of its
databases by unauthorized entities.
Plaintiff and class members allege actual and imminent injuries,
including theft of their PII, fraudulent activity on their
financial accounts, lowered credit scores, and costs associated
with detection and prevention of identity theft and fraud.
They seek to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages,
disgorgement of earnings and profits, and attorney's fees and
costs.
The Company filed its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on April
22, 2022.
On March 30, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
without prejudice, allowing it an opportunity to re-file the motion
once limited jurisdictional discovery has been completed.
At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the
liability related to this matter, as the case is still in its early
stages.
Verisk Analytics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSK), provides data analytics
solutions for customers in the insurance, natural resources,
healthcare, financial services, and risk management markets in the
United States and internationally. The Company was founded in 1971
and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey.
VERISK ANALYTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Ahringer Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics 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 3, 2023, that the Company filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in Ahringer class suit on
April 13, 2023.
On January 30, 2023, Plaintiffs Justin Ahringer and Michael Donner
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, Central District of California, titled Ahringer et al. v.
LoanDepot, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Case No.:
8:23-cv-00186.
Plaintiffs assert violations of California's Invasion of Privacy
Act, Unfair Competition Law, and a violation of class members'
privacy rights under the California Constitution.
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants recorded visitors' electronic
communications without their consent.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of individuals who
visited LoanDepot.com and provided personal information on the
website’s forms to receive a quote or apply for a loan.
They allege that the aggregate claims of all members of the
proposed class exceeds $5,000,000. Plaintiffs seek compensatory,
statutory or punitive damages or restitution, as well as reasonable
attorney's fees and other costs.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on April
13, 2023.
At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the
liability related to this matter, as the case is still in its early
stages.
Verisk Analytics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSK), doing business as Jornaya,
provides data analytics solutions for customers in the insurance,
natural resources, healthcare, financial services, and risk
management markets in the United States and internationally. The
Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City,
New Jersey.
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Motion to Dismiss Tirado Labor Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Murphy - Author and Ashley Paige Fetyko - Editor of Tyson and
Mendes report that Monique Tirado ("Tirado" or "plaintiff") brought
a class action against Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC April 15,
2021, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California. [i] The complaint alleged five causes of action (1)
failure to pay for all hours worked, (2) failure to pay minimum
wage and liquidated damages, (3) waiting time penalties, (4)
failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements,
and (5) unlawful business practices. [ii] On March 9, 2023, United
States District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston ruled to stay Tirado's
lawsuit according to the first-to-file rule, because the claims for
unpaid wages overlapped with lawsuits being pursued in other
federal actions. [iii]
Background
This class action was brought by Tirado on behalf of individuals
who have worked for Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC and L Brands,
Inc. ("Defendants") as non-exempt hourly employees. These employees
were subject to Defendants' wage and hours policies and COVID-19
health protocols and practices. The complaint alleged plaintiff and
similarly situated workers were denied payment for the hours worked
and had been forced to undergo temperature screenings while off the
clock.[iv] Plaintiff and class members were required to wait on
average 5 minutes for temperature screenings at the beginning of
their shift. The complaint alleged that this time spent waiting for
temperature checks is compensable, even though it was before
clocking in, but it nevertheless went unpaid. [v] The complaint
sought class action certification, compensatory and liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, restitution, interest, fees, and
costs.[vi]
Other Similar Cases
There are four cases currently pending with similar claims: Ochoa
v. L Brands Inc. et al.; Shauntese Lee v. Victoria's Secret et al.;
Elia Cortes v. Victoria's Secret Stores LLC et al.; and, Monica
Velazquez et al. v. L Brands Inc. [vii] All were filed between 2017
and 2020. [viii]
The decision to stay Tirado's case was premised on the
first-to-file rule.[ix] This rule generally dictates the court in
which an action is first filed is the appropriate court to
determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially
similar issues should proceed. [x] Tirado argued her claims were
distinct "because they arose from policies instituted after the
start of the COVID-19 pandemic," however Tirado did not define the
class to limit the members. Tirado's complaint defines the class as
"all current and former, hourly, non-exempt workers employed at any
Victoria's Secret store throughout California during the time
period starting March 4, 2020, until resolution of this action."
[xi] Since this definition did not limit the proposed class to only
those employees who underwent temperature screenings, "the claims
at least partially overlapped with other cases seeking wages for
off the clock work." [xii] Judge Thurston determined that the
parties in this lawsuit would be better able to determine which, if
any, of the alleged injuries have not been redressed by waiting for
the other actions to reach a final resolution. [xiii]
Colorado River Doctrine & Victoria's Secret's Bid to Dismiss
The Colorado River Doctrine allows a federal court to dismiss or
stay a federal action in deference to pending parallel state court
proceedings. [xiv] This doctrine relies on the wisdom of the courts
to avoid repetitive and unnecessary litigation; this ultimately
conserves judicial resources.[xv] Before a court can apply the
Colorado River Doctrine it must first determine "whether the state
and federal proceedings are parallel." [xvi] This can be done by
looking at the nature of the parties and nature of the
issues.[xvii]
Judge Thurston denied Victoria's Secret's bid to dismiss Tirado's
action in its entirety under the Colorado River Doctrine. Even
though the Court was permitted to dismiss federal actions that
significantly overlap with state court lawsuits, Judge Thurston
ruled that claims regarding temperature checks potentially arose
from separate practices than the pre-shift work policies in
Ochoa.[xviii] These claims lacked the substantial similarity that
would warrant a dismissal under the Colorado River Doctrine.[xix]
Takeaway
When filing a class action lawsuit, especially when other similar
lawsuits are already pending, it is essential to narrowly define
the class that the suit seeks to represent to avoid a dismissal or
stay. This is a helpful tool especially to employer defendants
facing multiple lawsuits alleging similar violations.
Sources
[i] Caleb Drickey, Victoria's secret worker must wait on Covid
Screening Suit Law360 (2023),
https://www.law360.com/articles/1584765/victoria-s-secret-worker-must-wait-on-covid-screening-suit.
[ii] Compl. 2 Tirado, et al. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, et
al.
[iii] Victoria's Secret Worker must wait on Covid Screening Suit,
supra note 1.
[iv] Comp. 1 Tirado, et al., supra note 2
[v] Id. Para. 17
[vi] Compl. Prayer Para. 1 through 10, supra note 2.
[vii] Victoria's Secret Worker must wait on Covid Screening Suit,
supra note 1.
[viii] Id.
[ix] Id.
[x] Amol Parikh, First-to-File Rule Must Be Followed Unless
Compelling Circumstances Justify Exception, JD Supra (2020),
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/first-to-file-rule-requires-that-action-6352977/.
[xi] Compl., Tirado, et al. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, et
al.
[xii] Victoria's Secret Worker must wait on Covid Screening Suit,
supra note 1.
[xiii] Id.
[xiv] Matthew D. Church, The Colorado River Doctrine Plant
Christensen and Kanell (2021),
http://www.pckutah.com/newsroom/2017/4/10/the-colorado-river-doctrine
(last visited Apr 14, 2023).
[xv] Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424
U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Rienhardt v. Kelly, 164 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th
Cir. 1999) ("In other words, the Colorado River Doctrine was
adopted to avoid duplicative litigation.")
[xvi] Allen v. Bd. of Educ., Unified Sch. Dist. No. 436, 68 F.3d
401, 402 (10th Cir. 1995).
[xvii] Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am. v. Heartland Home Care,
Inc., 324 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1206.
[xviii] Caleb Drickey, Victoria's secret worker must wait on Covid
Screening Suit Law360 (2023),
https://www.law360.com/articles/1584765/victoria-s-secret-worker-must-wait-on-covid-screening-suit.
[xix] Victoria's Secret Worker must wait on Covid Screening Suit,
supra note 1.[GN]
VICTORIA: Offers $5M Settlement in Public Housing Residents' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the Victorian government has proposed a $5
million settlement to public housing tower residents who were
subjected to a contentious COVID-19 lockdown.
The class action was launched by residents of nine public housing
towers in Flemington and North Melbourne, who were locked down
during Melbourne's second lockdown in July 2020.
The residents are seeking damages and declarations that the
government's actions were unlawful or beyond its powers.
The class action alleges the government wrongly detained residents
of the towers for up to 14 days and wrongly threatened them if they
tried to leave the towers.
In a notice posted to its website, the state government denies the
claims set out in the class action, but proposes to resolve the
issue through a settlement without trial.
The $5 million settlement would be divided between residents who
opt in to the agreement, with adults receiving a full share and
children a 50 per cent share.
About 3,000 people were living in the towers at the time of the
lockdown.
The government said residents wishing to participate in the
settlement, which is subject to court approval, must register by
June 27.
Lawyer Benedict Clemens, who represented the group taking action,
said subject to its approval, the settlement was "a very positive
result in light of the hardship endured by the plaintiffs and other
residents as well as visitors who suffered through the lockdown".
"The residents come from a highly vulnerable lower socio-economic
group. Many reported delays in receiving food and essential
medicines, and many experienced trauma, including refugees who
re-lived trauma they had suffered overseas," he said.
A Victorian Ombudsman's review released in December 2020 found the
state government breached human rights laws when it locked down the
public housing towers.
The investigation found the temporary lockdown, which was lifted at
eight of the nine towers within five days, was warranted.
But ombudsman Deborah Glass said the timing of the lockdown was not
based on direct public health advice.
"The rushed lockdown was not compatible with the residents' human
rights, including their right to humane treatment when deprived of
liberty," she said.
Ms Glass called on the government to apologise not for taking
decisive action, but rather for the "harm and distress caused by
the immediacy of their lockdown".
The government has so far resisted calls to make an apology and
there is no mention of an apology in the proposed settlement.
One of the residents involved in the class action, Barry Berih,
said there had not yet been a discussion about whether the
settlement would be accepted.
Mr Berih said he was still seeking an apology from the government.
"I can't speak on behalf of the other residents, but I can speak on
my behalf myself. Look, if it's settled at the moment, I can't
really go forward for it," he said.
"To me, it's not really that important in terms of the money
situation. The main important part is the apology and the community
itself." [GN]
VODAFONE GROUP: May Face Consumers' Class Suit Over Price Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Luthje of Basic Tutorials reports that the Vodafone price
increase is currently affecting more and more customers in the
cable and DSL network. However, this could be illegal. The consumer
center is therefore considering a class action lawsuit if a
correspondingly large number of affected parties come forward.
Is the Vodafone price increase illegal?
Vodafone informed customers about a price increase for DSL and
cable Internet rates as early as the beginning of March 2023.
However, the Federation of German Consumer Organizations (vzbv)
considers an increase of five euros per month to be inadmissible
and intends to prepare a corresponding class action against the
price increase.
Those affected report price increases from 27.99 euros to 32.99
euros or from 32.99 euros to 37.99 euros. The operator justifies
the increase among other things by increased energy prices for the
operation of the networks.
According to the vzbv, it says: "The vzbv considers the price
increases to be inadmissible. This also applies to the general
terms and conditions, which are supposed to allow Vodafone's
actions. The consequence is that consumers:inside can object to the
announced price increases."
Central consumer office calls for online notification
Consumers should report the case online. If enough reports are
received, the vzbv can take action against the price increase,
according to the statement of the consumer center.
Then one could examine also the concrete cases and become active.
The procedure is also likely to be closely monitored by the other
Internet providers, because price increases are also considered
quite likely here in the coming months. [GN]
YF FC OPERATIONS: Faces Pertusiello Suit Over Spam Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAITLIN PERTUSIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YF FC OPERATIONS, LLC D/B/A YOUFIT
GYMS, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-013253 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud.
Cir., Broward Cty., May 3, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to the cellular
telephone numbers of consumers in an attempt to promote its
products and services without obtaining prior express written
consent. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and
Class members were harmed, the suit asserts.
YF FC Operations, LLC, doing business as YouFit Gyms, is an
operator of fitness gyms in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
E-mail: Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group 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 3, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated Barua, Silverberg and
Hillier class suits in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.
On November 16, 2021, November 19, 2021 and January 6, 2022, three
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and
certain of its executive officers, alleging, among other things,
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those
who purchased our stock between August 7, 2020 and November 2,
2021.
The three purported class action lawsuits, captioned Barua v.
Zillow Group, Inc. et al., Silverberg v. Zillow Group, et al. and
Hillier v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al. were brought in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington and were
consolidated on February 16, 2022.
On May 12, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated
complaint which alleges, among other things, that the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its
Zillow Offers business. The complaints seek to recover, among other
things, alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as
a result of the alleged misconduct.
The Company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on
July 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to
dismiss on September 2, 2022, and it filed a reply in support of
the motion to dismiss on October 11, 2022.
On December 7, 2022, the court rendered its decision granting
defendants' motion to dismiss, in part, and denying the motion, in
part.
On January 23, 2023, the defendants filed their answer to the
consolidated complaint.
The Company intends to deny the allegations of wrongdoing and
intends to vigorously defend the claims in this consolidated
lawsuit.
Zillow Group provides marketing software and technology solutions
based in Washington.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 187 Pending Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., has been, and continues to be,
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death
and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to asbestos in
building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Aerojet Rocketdyne, "There were 187 asbestos cases pending as of
March 31, 2023.
"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims. The aggregate settlement costs and legal and
administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos
litigation has been immaterial for the last three years. As of
March 31, 2023, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount
related to pending claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3MhdLaV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Defends Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Such claims result from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley
Stoker Corporation (Riley) and the acquisition of Hercules in
November 2008. Although Riley, a former subsidiary, was neither a
producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers
contained some asbestos-containing components provided by other
companies. Hercules, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Ashland, has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products sold by one of Hercules’ former subsidiaries to
a limited industrial market.
"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs. Ashland reviews this estimate
and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results
of a non-inflated, non-discounted approximate 40-year model
developed with the assistance of Gnarus.
"During the most recent update completed during 2022, it was
determined that the liability for Ashland asbestos-related claims
should be increased by $16 million. Total reserves for asbestos
claims were $285 million at March 31, 2023 compared to $305 million
at September 30, 2022."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3BAgNly
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CarParts.com, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that
contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not
manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage
to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from
the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather
than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur
significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that
would be material to its consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3pLlyGe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Defends Numerous Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against Consolidated Edison, Inc., and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The suits that have been resolved, that are
many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or
for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The
amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total
billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these
amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of
previous claims. At March 31, 2023, Con Edison and CECONY have
accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential
liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be
brought over the next 15 years as shown in the following table.
These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling,
historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have
begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to
apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos
suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the
Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility
of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the
suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of
such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have
claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on
alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted
to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through
rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers'
compensation claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Bw6a3f
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Faces Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corporation is involved in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain
cases involving multiple defendants, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises. While the Company disputes the
plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend these
claims, the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be
determined at this time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims
for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and the Company
is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, which
may not be covered in whole or in part by its insurance coverage.
However, unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could
materially impact the Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings
for certain of these matters are scheduled to occur in the next
twelve months."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/457eTX8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp Has 14,343 Unresolved Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
ESAB Corporation, for the tree months ended March 31, 2023, has
recorded 14,343 unresolved asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Certain entities that became subsidiaries of
ESAB Corporation in connection with the Separation are the legal
obligor for certain asbestos obligations including long-term
asbestos insurance assets, long-term asbestos insurance
receivables, accrued asbestos liabilities, long-term asbestos
liabilities, asbestos indemnity expenses, asbestos-related defense
costs and asbestos insurance recoveries related to the asbestos
obligations from the Former Parent's other legacy industrial
businesses. As a result, the Company holds certain asbestos-related
contingencies and insurance coverages.
"These subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large
number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or used with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such
components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not
manufactured by any of the Company's, or Former Parent's,
subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries, producers or direct
suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged
to have contained or used asbestos generally were provided to meet
the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the
U.S. Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the
Company considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of
each claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos
claimant has fluctuated during the past several years while the
number of cases has steadily declined. The Company expects such
fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among other
things, the number and type of claims settled in a particular
period and the jurisdictions in which such claims arise. To date,
the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no payment.
"The Company has classified asbestos-related activity in Loss from
discontinued operations, net of taxes in the Consolidated and
Combined Condensed Statements of Operations. This is consistent
with the Former Parent's classification on the basis that, pursuant
to the purchase agreement from the Former Parent's Fluid Handling
business divestiture, the Former Parent retained its
asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverages. However, as
the Former Parent did not retain an interest in the ongoing
operations of the business subject to the contingencies,
asbestos-related activity was classified as part of Loss from
discontinued operations, net of taxes in the Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations of the Former Parent.
"The Company has projected each subsidiary's future
asbestos-related liability costs with regard to pending and future
unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The
Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and
has been accepted by numerous courts. Consistent with the Former
Parent, it is ESAB's policy to record a liability for
asbestos-related liability costs for the longest period of time
that ESAB management can reasonably estimate.
"The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the
asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims that will
be resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as
its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the
subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does
not believe the reasonably possible loss or a range of reasonably
possible losses is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no
accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be paid after the
next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related
liabilities as well as costs incurred related to efforts to recover
insurance from the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as
incurred."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3MchPZZ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Has $227MM Net Loss Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at March 31,
2023, has reported net asbestos loss reserves of $227 million, or
90.4%, of total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed
business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities
cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We
believe that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate
of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount.
"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company’s current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to
exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 6.7 years at March 31, 2023.
These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3pNPa5T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends 577 New Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation, for the three months ended March 31, 2023,
has received 577 new claims and lawsuits that seeks to recover
damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by our
heritage companies in the past, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the
overall number of asbestos-related claims in which we or our
predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent
years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or
that the average cost per claim to us will not further increase.
Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were encapsulated and used as internal components of process
equipment, and we do not believe that significant emission of
asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3IdQHZq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 17,237 Pending PI Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation is named as one of many defendants
(approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the
U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos
over the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as
defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors and
installers of numerous types of equipment or products that
allegedly contained asbestos.
"The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor of
asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a Company product
used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the asbestos
encapsulated in other materials such that airborne exposure, if it
occurred, was not harmful and is not associated with the types of
injuries alleged in the pending actions.
"At March 31, 2023, there were 17,237 pending asbestos personal
injury actions filed against the Company. Of those actions, 16,596
were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), 115
were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and 526
were filed in courts located in other states.
"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.
"At March 31, 2023, 16,549 of the actions filed in New York Supreme
Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket
created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future
asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they
have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. The
remaining 47 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or
In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a
malignant condition or physical impairment.
"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions referred to above.
The costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by
the Company's insurers.
In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. At March 31, 2023, the Company
has obtained dismissal in approximately 28,422 cases by stipulation
or summary judgment prior to trial."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3o0ZxTu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Defends Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Hess Corporation, and its subsidiary HONX, Inc., have been named as
defendants in various personal injury claims alleging exposure to
asbestos and/or other alleged toxic substances while working at a
former refinery (owned and operated by subsidiaries or related
entities) located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "On April 28, 2022, HONX, Inc. initiated a
Chapter 11 § 524G process in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, to resolve
these asbestos-related claims. In February 2023, Hess, HONX, Inc.,
the Unsecured Creditors' Committee, and counsel representing
claimants, reached a mediated resolution of the matter, contingent
upon final approvals of all parties and confirmation by the
Bankruptcy Court. As of March 31, 2023, we have a provision of $116
million for the amounts expected to be funded to the § 524G trust
established for the settlement of claims, based on the mediated
resolution.
"We are also involved in other judicial and administrative
proceedings from time to time in addition to the matters described
above, including claims related to post-production deductions from
royalty and working interest payments. We may also be exposed to
future decommissioning liabilities for divested assets in the event
the current or future owners of facilities previously owned by us
are determined to be unable to perform such actions, whether due to
bankruptcy or otherwise. We cannot predict with certainty if, how
or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual
relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in
their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek
indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved,
including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination
of important factual matters before a loss or range of loss can be
reasonably estimated for any proceeding."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/42CbRsd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Receives Exposure Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its
predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of
cases that have been and continue to be filed in various
jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current
employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos
containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Huntington Ingalls states, "In some instances, partial or full
insurance coverage is available for the Company's liabilities. The
costs to resolve cases during the three months ended March 31, 2023
and 2022, were not material individually or in the aggregate. The
Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to
uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by many variables
that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the Company
believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a
material effect on its condensed consolidated financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or
revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information
might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances
regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Mcxbxq
*********
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 ***