/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230531.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 31, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 109 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Detrolio Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Escue Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Farquhar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Gawron Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Products Contains Toxic Chemicals, Acosta Alleges ATMOSPHERE GASTROPUB: Devillaz Wage Suit Tossed Without Prejudice AUSTRALIA: Settles PFAS Class Action Suit for $22-M AXIOM PRODUCT: Gaillard Appeals Dismissal Ruling in Breach Suit BAYER US: Avoids Amended Class Action Over Benzene in Fungal Sprays BETTERHELP INC: R.S. Files Suit in N.D. California BLEACHER REPORT: Sorensen Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Entered; Bowens Claims Dismissed CAROTHERS HOLDING: Simpson Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina CENTERSPACE LP: Court Narrows Claims in Hall Data Breach Suit CERENCE INC: Pena Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois CERTAINTEED LLC: Trejo-Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. CHARTER FINANCIAL: Kotila Must Provide Specific Class Definition CHEAP CHARLIE'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Herrera et al. Claim COCA-COLA CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Mislabeled Water COOPER PROPERTIES: Moore Sues Over Wrongful Security Deposit Amount CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Bedbug Infestation DAISO CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Fukaya Suit DIGNITY HEALTH: Hooks Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir. DNC PARKS: Discovery Dispute Hearing in Vega Set for July 19 DOLLAR TREE: Faces Shield Class Suit Over False Advertising DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in McConnell Lawsuit DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Miser Lawsuit DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Neff Lawsuit DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Revis Lawsuit DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Robinson Lawsuit DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Rutkowski Lawsuit DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Sutton Lawsuit DXC TECHNLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class suit in Cal. EQUIFAX INFO: June 26 Extension of Expert Reports Submission Sought FCA US: VanGee Suit Removed to E.D. Texas FORD MOTOR: McCabe Sues Over Undisclosed Transmission Defect GEICO ADVANTAGE: Class Certification Order in Angell Suit Affirmed GEICO GENERAL: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Gardner Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over GM's 8-Speed Transmission GEOSNAPSHOT PTY: Moomaw Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois GKN DRIVELINE: Court Decertifies 3 Classes in Mebane Labor Suit GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Lamons Suit Removed to C.D. California GLOBAL PLASMA: Fishlock Sues Over Deceptive Air Treatment Products GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Hall Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina GOOGLE LLC: Collects Health Data Without Consent, Suit Alleges GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bid to Decertify Hart Suit Due June 7 H&M HENNES: E.D. Missouri Grants Bid to Dismiss Lizama Class Suit HITACHI ASTEMO: Settles Automotive Parts Antitrust Suit for $6M HOME DEPOT: Harter Sues Over False Product Labels of Lanterns HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Dziura Labor Suit HUMANA INC: Agrees to Settle 401(k) Fee Class Action Suit HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Thomas Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice ICON MEALS: Fails to Make Full Payment of Agricultural Goods IMA FINANCIAL: Faces Masterson Suit Over Data Breach INDEPENDENT LIVING: Phung Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI JBS USA: Edwards Sues for Discrimination JM SMUCKER CO: Mullins Sues Over Misleading Ads of Peanut Butter JPMORGAN CHASE: Fatnani Sues Over Unregistered Sale of Securities KPG NORTHEAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clement Alleges KROGER LIMITED: Austin Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NC LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Davis Class Suit in Florida LAMOILLE HEALTH: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Marshall Suit MANPOWER US: Flores Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices MARKWEST ENERGY: Hamilton FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. MDL 2913: Fabius-Pompey Central Sues Over E-Cig. Promotion to Youth MDL 2966: $3.4-Mil. Class Deal With Amneal & Lupin Wins Prelim. Nod MDL 2966: BSBCA Tossed From Xyrem Antitrust Suit Without Prejudice MDL 2972: Opposition to Mamie Class Cert. Bid Due June 9 MDL 2972: Opposition to Mitchell Class Cert. Bid Due June 9 MDL 2972: Opposition to Simkins Class Cert. Bid Due June 9 MDL 2972: Opposition to Zielinski Class Cert. Bid Due June 9 MEDICAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Debarr Suit Alleges MORLEY COS: Class Settlement in Thomsen Suit Wins Final Approval NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Neims Suit Removed to C.D. California NEW HAMPSHIRE: Doe Allowed to File Amended Class Complaint v. DHHS NEW YORK HEALTH: Distribution of Notice to Homecare Workers Sought NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Badu Says NISOURCE INC: Hardy Suit Moved to Northern District of Oklahoma NOVO NORDISK: Bid to Enter Judgment in Insulin Pricing Suit Denied PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Dismissal of Camelot Event Suit Under Appeal PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Sherman Act Class Suit Settlement for Court Nod PREFERRED FAMILY: Gordon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices PROCTER & GAMBLE: Fails to Warn on Detergent Pacs' Risks, Izzo Says QUEBEC MAJOR: Faces $15M Class Suit Over Alleged Hazing Abuse REALPAGE INC: Hollins Sues Over Wrongful Consumer Report RESIDENT HOME: Gutierrez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping RESURGENT CAPITAL: Court Dismisses Winter Suit Without Prejudice ROSC-EL INC: Mandel Sues Over Unlawful Landlord Practices SAFELITE GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Adams Suit Claims SIDWELL AIR: Madsen Files Bid for Conditional Class Certification SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Johnson Seeks Conditional Status of Class Suit SIRIUS XM: Stevenson's False Ad Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. SMITHFIELD FRESH: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Franklin STANLEY BLACK: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit in Conn. SVF MURAL SEATTLE: Amorine Sues Over Unlawful Rent Hikes SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: $7.25-Mil. Class Deal in Saucillo Suit Upheld TELEPHONE AND DATA: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misrepresentation & Omissions TESLA INC: Shareholders Hit Musk Tweet on Privatization Rumor TESLA INC: Software Updates Cut Battery Capacity, Bui-Ford Says TIMEC SERVICES: E.D. California Narrows Claims in Wilson Class Suit TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Electronic Court Filing System UCOR LLC: Seeks July 12 Response Date for Speer Class Cert Bid UNITED STATES CELLULAR: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit UPPER DARBY TOWNSHIP: Candido Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania VENEZUELA: PDVSA Appeals Ruling in Gold Reserve Suit to 3rd Cir. WALGREENS CO: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Theranos Suit WASHINGTON, DC: Plaintiffs File Second Renewed Bid for Class Cert WEC ENERGY GROUP: Continues to Defend Munt Class Suit in Wisconsin WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Product Liability Suit WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Daly Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois WP FREMAUX: Bid for Summary Judgments Due Sept. 27 in Sylve Suit ZOOM VIDEO: Trial in Securities Class Suit Set for May 24, 2024 ********* 3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Davis, Jr., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01460-RMG (D.S.C., April 10, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. Jeremiah Mosley, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-879-5000 Facsimile: 205-879-5901 3M COMPANY: Detrolio Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Frank Detrolio, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01461-RMG (D.S.C., April 10, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a state police officer and was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. Jeremiah Mosley, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-879-5000 Facsimile: 205-879-5901 3M COMPANY: Escue Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Escue, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01463-RMG (D.S.C., April 10, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a state police officer and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. Jeremiah Mosley, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-879-5000 Facsimile: 205-879-5901 3M COMPANY: Farquhar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Farquhar and Lisa Farquhar, his wife, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01399-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer and/or other medical conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-855-6060 Facsimile: 732-726-4860 3M COMPANY: Gawron Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Gawron, Jr. and Amanda Gawron, his wife, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01400-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer and/or other medical conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-855-6060 Facsimile: 732-726-4860 3M COMPANY: Products Contains Toxic Chemicals, Acosta Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE ACOSTA, individually and as parent and natural guardian of M.A., minor child; GABRIEL ACOSTA; GABRIEL ACOSTA, Jr.; MARILENA ACOSTA; CLAUDIO ACOSTA; ALICYA ALTAMIRANO, individually and as parent and natural guardian of S.G. and J.G., minor children; ANTHONY ALTAMIRANO; KYLE AMES, individually and as parent and natural guardian of M.A., O.A., and P.A.; TORIN ANTIJUNTI; VICTORIA ANTIJUNTI; RONALD BOSTER; PAMELA BOSTER; DEBBY BROWN; DOUG SIMPSON; RICHARD HAYES; MARY HAYES; BRAD HYATT; BRANDI HYATT; JENNIFER MCINNIS; DARIK ROCHON; TASHA MCLEMORE; WILL MCLEMORE; MARK MEYOCKS; RENEE MEYOCKS; CODY MEYOCKS; MADISON MEYOCKS, LANCE OSTROM; CHARLENE OSTROM; JAMIE PARKER; LANDON PARKER; GERALD RAFN; JILL RAFN; JESSICA RICHARDS, individually and as parent and next friend of G.B. and K.F., minor children; SONIA SERRANO, individually and as parent and next friend of E.V., minor child; JOSE VARGAS; JUAN VARGAS; TROY SLOBIG; CORY SLOBIG; ROBERT SMOOT; CARRIE VALENCIA; AUDOMARO VALENCIA; EVELYN VANDENHEUVEL; RICHARD VANDENHEUVEL; MATTHEW VOGEL; JENNA VOGEL; JUSTIN WERST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC, INC., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION, ARKEMA INC.; ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; and TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03068 (E.D. Wash., May 17, 2023) is an action arising from the foreseeable contamination of groundwater by the use of aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF") products that contained per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"). According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold AFFF/Component Products with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by the Defendants. Beginning in 2020, the Army began testing drinking water wells on and around the YTC for PFAS. On-base use of firefighting foams that contain PFAS has contaminated groundwater, including off-base private drinking water wells west of the Yakima Training Center ("YTC"). As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered injury and damages from the presence of PFAS in their water wells, says the suit. 3M COMPANY conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dave Bricklin, Esq. Zachary Griefen, Esq. BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP 123 NW 36th Street Suite 205 Seattle, WA 98107 Telephone: (206) 264-8600 Email: bricklin@bnd-law.com griefen@bnd-law.com - and - Patrick Lanciotti, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 397-1000 Email: planciotti@napolilaw.com ATMOSPHERE GASTROPUB: Devillaz Wage Suit Tossed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC DEVILLAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATMOSPHERE GASTROPUB, INC., MICHAEL DAVIS, MEGAN DAVIS, and STEVEN BAILEY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-cv-0126-WJM-MDB (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Devillaz sues Atmosphere, Michael Davis, Megan Davis, and Steven Bailey for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., as amended ("FLSA"), the Colorado Wage Claim Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sections 8-4-101, et seq. ("CWCA"), and Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order ("COMPS Order") #36, 7 Colo. Code Regs. 1103-1 (together, "Colorado Wage Laws"). Now before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The lawsuit is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The putative class and collective members are all individuals employed or formerly employed by Defendants as "front of the house" employees. The Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals he seeks to represent include current and former servers, who are tipped employees under the FLSA and Colorado Wage Laws. The Defendants operate the "Back East" and "Atmosphere" restaurants in Colorado Springs and Denver, Colorado. The Plaintiff and the putative collective members were employed at one or more of the Defendants' restaurant locations within the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit. He alleges the Defendants required servers at both restaurants to contribute to a tip pool of which the Defendants distributed a significant portion to owners, management, kitchen staff and/or other employees who are not customarily and regularly tipped in violation of federal and state law. He also alleges the Defendant failed to provide employees the meal and rest breaks required" by the Colorado Wage Laws. Paystubs attached to the Motion show the Plaintiff was at all times paid more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. This is because Colorado's "tipped wage" was already $8.08 per hour when the Plaintiff began working at Atmosphere in 2019 and increased to $9.30 per hour by the time his employment ended in 2021. First, the Defendants argue the Court lacks jurisdiction on the basis that Plaintiff's FLSA claim (the only federal claim between these non-diverse parties) was stated solely to obtain Federal jurisdiction and is insubstantial and wholly frivolous. In their view, this is so because the Plaintiff was always paid more than $7.25 per hour, and they state in a footnote that these facts also implicate Article III standing. Because the Congress has specifically prohibited employers covered by the FLSA from diverting employee tips to managers regardless of whether they take the tip credit, Judge Martinez finds that the Plaintiff has standing, and the Court has jurisdiction over his FLSA claim. The Defendants next argue that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because: (1) he always received a wage in excess of $7.25 per hour; and (2) he fails to effectively plead that Carrie Platzer--who allegedly participated in the tip pool--was a manager. As his analysis makes clear, Judge Martinez says that the Defendants did not claim the federal tip credit is not the insurmountable obstacle to the Plaintiff's FLSA claim they believe it to be. The Defendants then argue the Plaintiff has not pleaded (and cannot plead) facts that plausibly allege that Carrie Platzer was a manager within the meaning of the FLSA and implementing regulations. Judge Martinez disagrees with their assertion that the Plaintiff cannot plead facts plausibly alleging Platzer was a manager. Therefore, the Plaintiff's FLSA claim is dismissed without prejudice. Because the Plaintiff's FLSA claim arises from the same set of operative facts as his state-law claims, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. But the case is now in a fundamentally altered procedural posture because the Court is dismissing the Plaintiff's only federal claim. Therefore, Judge Martinez also dismisses the Plaintiff's state claims without prejudice. For these reasons, Judge Martinez grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. He dismisses the First Amended Class Action and Collective Action Complaint without prejudice. He dismisses the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Approval of Hoffman-LaRoche Notice as moot. Pursuant to its terms, the Stay Order of the Magistrate Judge is lifted. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/afrlx from Leagle.com. AUSTRALIA: Settles PFAS Class Action Suit for $22-M --------------------------------------------------- David Simmons of Business News Australia reports that Law firm Shine Justice (ASX: SHJ) has settled another class action lawsuit relating to exposure to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl) chemicals to the tune of $22 million, subject to Federal Court approval. The settlement comes just around two weeks after Shine reached a $132.7 million settlement in a class action on behalf of a group affected by toxic PFAS chemicals who alleged their properties lost value due to land contamination. PFAS substances, found in firefighting foam, are a complex group of around 4,000 synthetic chemicals that do not break down naturally and instead accumulate over time in humans and in the environment This latest settlement in the matter of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council resolves a dispute between the applicants and the Commonwealth of Australia, with affected community members claiming losses to property value and use and enjoyment of the land, as well as cultural losses due to exposure to firefighting foam around Wreck Bay in the Jervis Bay Territory. It also comes after Shine successfully secured a $215.5 million settlement for thousands of victims of PFAS chemical contamination via a deal struck in 2020. That settlement gave closure to residents in Katherine in the Northern Territory, those in Williamtown in New South Wales and occupants of Oakey, Queensland whose property values declined in value as a result of PFAS contamination. Shares in SHJ are down 3.45 per cent to $0.70 per share at 12.27pm AEST. [GN] AXIOM PRODUCT: Gaillard Appeals Dismissal Ruling in Breach Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff FRANCINE GAILLARD filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated May 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled FRANCINE GAILLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, a division of Capital One, N.A.; AXIOM PRODUCT ADMINISTRATION, LLC; and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02228-JMC, in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act, and violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The case arises from the Defendants' refusal to honor the terms of Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) products they sell to consumers purchasing financed automobiles. Defendant Axiom Product Administration administers GAP waiver products on behalf of finance companies like Capital One and John Doe Defendants and it breaches the contractual terms governing the GAP product terms it created by basing its payment on an actual cash valuation method of their own choosing, rather than the collision insurance payment, resulting in a substantial underpayment on each claim. The Defendants have refused to waive balances due when required under the terms of GAP products administered by Axiom on behalf of those Defendants and incorporated as addenda to the Plaintiff and other Class members' loan agreements. The Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered loss and damages because of the breach of the loan agreement, including loss of funds and the inability to obtain credit, the suit alleges. On September 2, 2021, Defendant Capital One Auto Finance filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim and and to strike class allegations. On September 3, Axiom Product Administration also filed a motion to dismiss the case. On September 29, 2022, Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant Capital One's motion to dismiss. Defendant Axiom's motion to dismiss was also granted in part and denied in part. Additionally, the court denied Capital One's alternative Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations. The Plaintiff may proceed with her claims for breach of contract and violation of the FCRA against Capital One individually and as a class representative. Further, Plaintiff may proceed with her cause of action alleging a violation of SCUTPA against Axiom in her individual capacity only. On May 5, 2023, Judge Lydon signed another Order dismissing all of Plaintiff's federal claims when it dismissed Defendant Capital One from this case. All that is left is a single state-law claim against Defendant Axiom where the alleged damages are, according to Plaintiff Gaillard, worth less than $5,000. And, as Plaintiff Gaillard points out, the parties have not yet engaged in discovery. For these reasons, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Gaillard's remaining claim against Defendant Axiom and dismissed the matter. The appellate case is captioned as Francine Gaillard v. Axiom Product Administration LLC, Case No. 23-1524, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FRANCINE GAILLARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Phillip Donald Barber, Esq. Andrew Richard Hand, Esq. RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA 1410 Laurel Street P. O. Box 1090 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 252-4848 - and - J. Derrick Jackson, Esq. Tobias G. Ward, Jr., Esq. TOBIAS G. WARD, JR. LAW FIRM P. O. Box 50124 Columbia, SC 29250 Telephone: (803) 708-4200 Defendant-Appellee AXIOM PRODUCT ADMINISTRATION LLC is represented by: Christopher Lee Boguski, Esq. Joseph Calhoun Watson, Esq. ROBINSON GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC P. O. Box 11449 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 929-1400 BAYER US: Avoids Amended Class Action Over Benzene in Fungal Sprays ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ufonobong Umanah of Bloomberg Law reports that Bayer US LLC is free from a class action suit over benzene contamination in its antifungal sprays. The pharmaceutical company had voluntarily recalled Tinactin and Lotrimin—used for various skin infections—because several products had levels of benzene, a carcinogen, higher than the Food and Drug Administration's limits. Consumers who had bought the products sued in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, arguing that but for contamination during Bayer's manufacturing process, they were unable to benefit from the purchased spray, and the compensation for this loss was insufficient. [GN] BETTERHELP INC: R.S. Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BetterHelp, Inc. The case is styled as R.S., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BetterHelp, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01839-RS (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. BetterHelp -- https://www.betterhelp.com/ -- is a mental health platform that provides online mental health services directly to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Jerome Muller, Esq. VENTURA HERSEY & MULLER, LLP 1506 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 Phone: (408) 512-3022 Fax: (408) 512-3023 Email: dmuller@venturahersey.com BLEACHER REPORT: Sorensen Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tom Sorensen, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLEACHER REPORT, INC., Case No. 2023CH02104 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02518. On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff Tom Sorensen filed a complaint (the "State Complaint") in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The State Complaint asserts a single claim under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA"), based on Bleacher Report's alleged practice of knowingly disclosing to Meta Platforms, Inc. information about what videos specific individuals watched on Bleacherreport.com through use of the Meta Pixel and Meta's c_user cookie.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Adam Florek, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: 314-833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com aflorek@peifferwolf - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian A. Sher, Esq. Steven G. Trubac, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Phone: (312) 602-5000 Facsimile: (312) 602-5050 Email: brian.sher@bclplaw.com steve.trubac@bclplaw.com - and - David L. Yohai, Esq. Blake J. Steinberg, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 Email: david.yohai@weil.com blake.steinberg@weil.com - and - David R. Singh, Esq. Amy T. Le, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, California 94065 Phone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Email: david.singh@weil.com amy.le@weil.com BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Entered; Bowens Claims Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHARLES ANTHONY BOWENS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (2), Civil Action No. 17-3054 (E.D. La.), Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c.'s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook and their motion for summary judgment; and b. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an onshore cleanup worker. They represent that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: headaches, bronchitis, upper respiratory infection, shortness of breath, heart palpitations, chronic rhinitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, abdominal pains, chronic heartburn, rashes, blisters, dermatitis, boils, chronic blurred vision, burning eyes, and loss of visual acuity. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for the Plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After his case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his March 14, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. Judge Lemmon finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. The Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in the case, Judge Lemmon grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. Putting aside that the Plaintiff has not shown sanctionable conduct by BP, Judge Lemmon holds that Dr. Cook's report is flawed in ways unrelated to BP's decision not to conduct monitoring. Dr. Cook's failure to link any specific chemicals to the conditions allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff prevents the admission of Cook's opinion. Judge Lemmon thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Finally, given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Lemmon grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://rb.gy/dixjz from Leagle.com. CAROTHERS HOLDING: Simpson Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Hubert Simpson, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carothers Holding Company, LLC doing business as: York Memorial Park Cemetery; StoneMor GP, LLC; StoneMor North Carolina, LLC; StoneMor North Carolina Funeral Services, Inc.; StoneMor North Carolina Subsidiary, LLC; StoneMor Partners, LP; Case No. 23-CVS-4982 was removed from the Mecklenburg County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on April 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00217-KDB-SCR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Carothers Holding Company, LLC doing business as York Memorial Park Cemetery is a Memorial park in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela A. Hunter, Esq. 715 East Fifth Street, Ste. 106 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (412) 370-9110 Email: bobmackeyesq@aol.com The Defendants are represented by: Anthony T. Lathrop, Esq. William Medearis Butler, II, Esq. MOORE & VAN ALLEN 100 N. Tryon Street, Suite 4700 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 331-3596 Fax: (704) 339-5896 Email: tonylathrop@mvalaw.com billbutler@mvalaw.com - and - Brian S. Cromwell, Esq. PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP Bank of America Tower 620 South Tryon Street, Suite 800 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 335-9511 Fax: (704) 334-4706 Email: briancromwell@parkerpoe.com CENTERSPACE LP: Court Narrows Claims in Hall Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Gary Hall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Centerspace, LP, and Centerspace, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-2028 (KMM/DJF) (D. Minn.), Jude Katherine Menendez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss Hall's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In November of 2021, Centerspace LP learned that computer hackers accessed its data systems, including files containing the personal identifying information of the company's customers and employees. After investigating the incident, in July of 2022, it notified the people whose information may have been exposed, including Hall. Hall filed a class-action Complaint, alleging that the company's improper handling of its data security caused the unauthorized exposure of his personal information to third parties. The Defendants own and operate apartment complexes in Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Hall was an employee of IRET Property Management, a Centerspace LP subsidiary or its predecessor. His employer was a property manager for the Centerspace-owned apartment complexes. Hall was required to provide his personal identifying information ("PII") to his employer. Similarly, other Centerspace employees, prospective employees, tenants, and prospective tenants were required to give Defendants their PII as a condition of their housing or employment relationships. The PII includes names, bank account information, and social security numbers. Hall trusted that Centerspace LP would use reasonable measures to protect his PII according to its internal policies and state and federal law. On Nov. 11, 2021, Centerspace LP learned that it had experienced a data security breach, which disrupted access to its computer systems. Centerspace looked into the incident, hiring independent digital forensics analysts and an incident response firm. On November 15th, the company discovered that computer files potentially containing PII were accessed by unauthorized third parties. However, Centerspace LP did not notify those potentially affected by the data breach until July 2022. The data breach affected 8,190 people, including current and former employees and current and former tenants. On information and belief, Hall alleges that Centerspace failed to adequately train its employees on reasonable cybersecurity protocols or implement reasonable security measures, causing it to lose control over consumer PII. The Defendants allegedly acted negligently by failing to prevent the data breach and to stop cybercriminals from accessing the PII that they maintain. The Complaint asserts that Defendants were unable or unwilling to notify current and former employees and tenants about the breach without unreasonable delay. And the Defendants allegedly waited until after the data breach to implement digital security measures to make future breaches of their systems less likely. Further, Hall alleges that because of the data breach he has experienced several types of harms. He has already and will continue to spend considerable time and effort monitoring his accounts to protect himself from identity theft. He has concerns about his financial security and is uncertain about what information was exposed in the data breach. The breach has caused him to experience feelings of anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, fear, and frustration. Hall asserts that he and the proposed members of the class have suffered monetary losses, lost time, anxiety, and emotional distress. In addition, they have suffered or are at an increased risk of suffering the following harms: (a) lost opportunity to control use of their PII; (b) diminution in value of their PII; (c) compromise and publication of their PII; (d) out-of-pocket costs associated with prevention, detection, recovery, and remediation from identity theft or fraud; (e) lost opportunity costs and lost wages associated with time and effort to address or mitigate the consequences of the Data Breach; (f) delayed receipt of tax refunds; (g) unauthorized use of stolen PII; and (h) continued risk to their PII, which remains in Defendants' possession. In explaining why the Defendants are responsible for these harms, Hall alleges that the Defendants failed to adhere to Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") guidelines in protecting the PII they possessed. He asserts that the Defendants' failure to follow the FTC's recommendations constitutes an unfair act or practice prohibited by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTCA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 45. Hall seeks to represent a class of "all individuals residing in the United States whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach disclosed by Centerspace in July 2022." He brings the following claims: negligence (Count I); breach of implied contract (Count II); unjust enrichment (Count III); and declaratory judgment (Count IV). In his Prayer for Relief, he seeks certification of the class, declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and other appropriate relief. In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants challenge Hall's standing under Article III of the Constitution to assert claims against Centerspace, Inc. and to pursue future injunctive relief. They also argue that his remaining claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Menendez grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. She dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against Centerspace, Inc. based on the Plaintiff's agreement and the Plaintiff's claims for forward-looking declaratory and injunctive relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She dismisses the Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment in Count III of the Complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Menendez denies the Defendants' Motion in all other respects. Among other things, Judge Menendez finds that (i) Hall has adequately alleged a breach; (ii) Hall has not adequately alleged an unjust enrichment claim because he does not identify a benefit plausibly conferred upon Centerspace through the provision of PII; and (iii) although Centerspace has pointed to cases in its briefing that have granted Rule 12(b)(6) motions based on insufficient damages claims, none are binding authority. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/afvux from Leagle.com. CERENCE INC: Pena Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carlos Pena, A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Cerence Inc., Case No. 23STCV06839 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02667 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Cerence Inc. -- http://www.cerence.com/-- is an American multinational software company that develops artificial intelligence assistant technology primarily for automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Myles P. McGuire, Esq. Colin Primo Buscarini, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com cbuscarini@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq. Amy Yongmee Cho, Esq. Mehgan Etain Hayt Keeley, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 111 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 704-7777 Email: mwolfe@shb.com acho@shb.com mkeeley@shb.com CERTAINTEED LLC: Trejo-Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FRANCISCO TREJO-RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERTAINTEED LLC, a limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. MCV088583, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Madera to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 15, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00874 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seven total causes of action, six of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. CertainTeed LLC is a North American manufacturer of building materials.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Melis Atalay, Esq. Daniel N. Rojas, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com melis.atalay@ogletree.com CHARTER FINANCIAL: Kotila Must Provide Specific Class Definition ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW KOTILA, Plaintiff v. CHARTER FINANCIAL PUBLISHING NETWORK, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-704 (W.D. Mich.), Judge Hala Y. Jarbou of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class for purposes of damages on the condition that he provides a more definite class definition. The lawsuit is a putative class action asserting violations of Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (PPPA), Mich. Comp. Laws Section 445.1711, et seq. Charter defaulted by failing to appear or otherwise respond to the complaint. Kotila is a Michigan resident. Charter is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. It publishes a magazine called Financial Advisor. Kotila subscribed to this magazine before July 31, 2016. He alleges that Charter disclosed his name, address, and magazine subscription to data aggregators and other third parties sometime before July 31, 2016. As a result, Kotila received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. Until the PPPA was amended in July 2016, it prohibited a person engaged in the business of selling at retail, renting, or lending books or other written materials, sound recordings, or video recordings from disclosing to any person, other than the customer, a record or information concerning the purchase, lease, rental, or borrowing of those materials by a customer that indicates the identity of the customer. That version of the PPPA also entitled the customer to recover the following for a violation of the statute: actual damages, damages for emotional distress, or $5,000, whichever is greater, as well as costs and reasonable attorney fees. The amended version of the PPPA in effect today no longer provides for $5,000 in statutory damages; it requires plaintiffs to prove actual damages to recover under the statute. Kotila's claim relies on the earlier version of the PPPA. He alleges that Charter disclosed his information during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period without obtaining his consent to do so. He seeks to represent a class of other Michigan residents whose information was disclosed by Charter prior to July 31, 2016. He seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation of the PPPA. Kotila asks to certify the following class: All Michigan residents who, at any point during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, had their Private Reading Information disclosed to third parties by Charter without consent. Judge Jarbou opines that Kotila has shown that class certification is warranted. But, before she certifies a particular class, Judge Jarbou requires Kotila to provide a more specific class definition as his definition is not sufficiently definite to determine whether an individual is a member of the proposed class. Kotila also asks the Court to allow him to conduct discovery on third parties so that he can identify class members and calculate damages for purposes of default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2). Because the class definition will likely guide discovery, Judge Jarbou does not consider such a request until after Kotila submits, and the Court approves, a satisfactory class definition. At that point, Kotila can file a separate motion for discovery. An order will be entered in accordance with Judge Jarbou's Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion is available at https://rb.gy/x9g5p from Leagle.com. CHEAP CHARLIE'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Herrera et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROMULO HERRERA, CALEB GONZALEZ, EDWIN DURAN, JORGE GONZALEZ, ERICK GUARDADO, NOE GONZALEZ, GEOVANNY RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARLES ZANGHI, MICHELE IRVING, MICHELE ZANGHI, CHEAP CHARLIE'S TREE SERVICE, CMZ LEASING CORP. d/b/a CHEAP CHARLIE'S TREE SERVICE, CHEAP CHARLIE'S TREE & LANDSCAPE DESIGN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03726 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Romulo Herrera was employed by Defendants as a driver, tree pruner, cutter, planter, trimmer, machine operator, and overall construction worker from before the statutory time until April 2023. He generally worked over 40 hours a week. However, the Defendants allegedly had a policy and practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffs for those hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Among other things, the Defendants also failed to provide itemized wage statements as required by the NYLL, say the Plaintiffs. The Defendants provide land management and tree care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-4530 E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com COCA-COLA CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Mislabeled Water ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keller and Heckman LLP of Lexology reports that on May 19, Coca-Cola filed a motion to dismiss in an Illinois federal court, requesting the judge to throw out a proposed class action alleging it misleads consumers into thinking its Fresca brand of soda water contains real fruit with no added sweetener. See Letoski et al. v. The Coca-Cola Co., case number 1:23-cv-00238, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Earlier this year, consumers filed suit against Coca-Cola, alleging that its Fresca products' "Grapefruit" and "Black Cherry" flavor descriptions, which are accompanied by vignettes of the relevant fruits, caused them to believe the soft drinks contain "non-negligible amounts" of "fruit ingredients." Although the products contain "concentrated grapefruit juice," the complaint alleges that the amount must necessarily be "de minimis" because (1) there is less grapefruit juice than "citric acid"; and (2) "based on industry estimates of the use of citric acid in carbonated beverages" the Fresca products probably contain "roughly 0.60 grams of citric acid." This is deceptive, the complaint alleges, because the products contain only "fruit flavoring." Further, the plaintiffs allege that the term "soda water" caused them to think that Fresca is simply "carbonated water" without any "added sweeteners or flavorings," when the Fresca products contain aspartame, a non-nutritive sweetener. In its motion to dismiss, Coca Cola contends that the product labels are in full compliance with FDA' food labeling regulations, arguing that the characterizing flavor regulation at 21 CFR 101.22(i) do not require real fruit ingredients to be in a product bearing fruit-related terms and vignettes, but rather must be accompanied only by a disclosure about the source(s) of the product's flavoring ingredients (e.g., "natural flavors," "other natural flavors," or "artificial flavors"). Thus, according to the defendant, the ""Black Cherry Citrus Flavor with Other Natural & Artificial Flavors" designation and fruit vignette on Fresca communicates that the beverage contains black cherry flavors, not actual cherry ingredients. Additionally, the Fresca products contain "concentrated grapefruit juice," a fruit-based ingredient. Additionally, Coca Cola argues that plaintiffs have no basis to conclude the term "soda water" promises consumers a product with no added sweeteners, claiming the use of the artificial sweetener aspartame in Fresca is properly disclosed on product labeling. The company reasoned that a reasonable consumer interested in knowing about the presence of sweeteners in product can find the ingredients declared on the product ingredient list. [GN] COOPER PROPERTIES: Moore Sues Over Wrongful Security Deposit Amount ------------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COOPER PROPERTIES D/B/A CASA D'ORO APARTMENTS PARTNERSHIP, Defendants, Case No. CACE-23-013787 (Fla. Cir., 7th Judicial, Broward Cty., May 18, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and actions that constitute common law fraud. Allegedly, the Defendant unlawfully assessed Plaintiff Moore's charges and/or amounts that Defendant did not actually incur and are considered normal wear and tear. The Defendant sent a letter, dated March 20, 2023, to Plaintiff Moore in an attempt to collect the $3,632.00 worth of damages/services. Cooper Properties, Inc. d/b/a Casa D'Oro Apartments Partnership is a Florida Corporation with its principal place of business located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, 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: shannon@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com jibrael@jibraellaw.com CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Bedbug Infestation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ufonobong Umanah of Bloomberg Law reports that a retirement center must face a class action over its alleged refusal to deal with a rampant bedbug infestation. The elderly residents of Cross-Lines Retirement Center in Kansas City, Kan. can move forward on five issues alleging breach of standard of care for failing to maintain their properties and selling them above fair market value, US District Court for the District of Kansas Judge Eric F. Melgren said in an order on May 24, 2023. The plaintiffs cannot use the action to learn whether every tenant was affected by the infestation, the judge said. [GN] DAISO CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Fukaya Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKIKO FUKAYA, v. DAISO CALIFORNIA LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00099-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting in part and denying in part Daiso's motion to dismiss and to strike class claims: -- The Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claim is dismissed with leave to amend. Her prayer for injunctive relief with respect to her CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims is dismissed with leave to amend. -- The parties are referred to a randomly-assigned magistrate judge for a settlement conference to be held at a date and time agreed to by the magistrate judge and parties. -- The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before June 15, 2023. The parties may stipulate to continue this date and all other deadlines pending the settlement conference. Daiso moves to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations as unmanageable and to require the Plaintiff to cover the costs of class notice. Those arguments may be properly considered at the class certification stage, but are now premature. Thus, Daiso's motion to dismiss or strike on this basis is denied. The Plaintiff brings consumer protection claims related to Daiso's failure to label its products as containing tree nuts, a common allergen. Food allergies can provoke life-threatening response, including anaphylaxis, from the body's immune system. Allergies to tree nuts, such as walnuts, almonds, hazelnuts, pecans, cashews, and pistachios, are fairly common. Along with peanuts and shellfish, tree nuts are one of the allergens most often linked to anaphylaxis. The Plaintiff is a California resident who is allergic to tree nuts. In summer 2022, she bought the Tiramisu Twist Cookie packaged food product at a Daiso store in Daly City. Daiso has more than 3,000 stores in Japan and 2,300 outside of Japan, including 89 in the United States (California, Washington, Nevada, Texas, New Jersey, and New York). A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OqDwYU at no extra charge.[CC] DIGNITY HEALTH: Hooks Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 9th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff TRAVONNE HOOKS filed an appeal from the District Court's Order and Judgment dated April 12, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled TRAVONNE HOOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIGNITY HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-07699-DSF-PD, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all persons who contracted with Defendant for access to their personal electronic health information records and were denied access to their PHI or were provided with their PHI in an impermissible format or incomplete file in violation of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act. The case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 21, 2022. On Dec. 27, 2022, Judge Dale S. Fischer of the Central District of California denied Hooks' November 18, 2022 motion to remand to Los Angeles County Superior Court. On March 9, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 16, 2023, Judge Fischer granted a joint stipulation to continue briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On April 12, 2023, Judge Fischer signed an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Judgment says that Plaintiff take nothing; the breach of contract claim is dismissed with prejudice; all other claims is dismissed without prejudice; and Defendant recover costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1920. The appellate case is captioned as Travonne Hooks v. Dignity Health, et al., Case No. 23-55434, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Travonne Hooks Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 19, 2023; -- Transcript was ordered May 12, 2023; -- Transcript is due on June 12, 2023; -- Appellant Travonne Hooks opening brief is due on July 21, 2023; -- Appellee Dignity Health answering brief is due on August 21, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TRAVONNE HOOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jason Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108 St. George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Defendant-Appellee DIGNITY HEALTH is represented by: Peggy Kozal, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80230 Telephone: (303) 200-6888 - and - Craig J. Mariam, Esq. GORDON & REES, LLP 633 W 5th Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 DNC PARKS: Discovery Dispute Hearing in Vega Set for July 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SOCORRO VEGA, v. DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT ASILOMAR, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00484-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order that: 1. The parties shall meet and confer to determine the propriety of a stipulation to strike some or all of the declarations of the witnesses Kalli Southwood, Reina Oviedo, Alfredo Marquez, and Sandra Diaz from the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. 2. Any such stipulation shall be filed no later than the close of business, May 16, 2023. 3. If the parties are unable to reach a stipulation to strike the witnesses' declarations, the Defendant is granted leave to file a motion for discovery sanctions, including a request for reasonable fees and costs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 no later than May 31, 2023, with the hearing on such motion to be set for July 19, 2023. 4. If the Defendant files a Rule 37 motion, the Court shall sua sponte continue the briefing and hearing dates for the class certification motion. The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action on April 12, 2029. Pursuant to the amended scheduling order, the pre-certification discovery cutoff was set for December 14, 2022. The Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class on February 17, 2023. The hearing on the motion was originally set for April 26, 2023. On March 23, 2023, the Court continued the pre-certification discovery deadline to June 9, 2023 On May 10, 2023, the parties appeared by videoconference for an informal discovery conference. A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BLAxTf at no extra charge.[CC] DOLLAR TREE: Faces Shield Class Suit Over False Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims Dollar Tree has misled consumers by selling glucosamine sulfate supplements that, in fact, contain no glucosamine sulfate. The 34-page lawsuit says that the front label of the Nature's Measure supplement describes the product as "Glucosamine Sulfate," and the back-label "Supplement Facts" panel indicates that each tablet contains 500 milligrams of "Glucosamine Sulfate 2KCl." Despite these representations, independent lab testing has revealed that the supplements contain no glucosamine sulfate, but rather a blend of potassium sulfate and glucosamine hydrochloride, a form of glucosamine widely considered to be less effective than its sulfate counterpart, the suit relays. "The lab test did not simply show that there was . . . less [glucosamine sulfate] than the label claimed -- the test showed that there was . . . no [glucosamine sulfate] in the pills that were tested," the complaint shares. The products' marketing is misleading because the labels in no way suggest that the Nature's Measure items actually contain glucosamine hydrochloride and potassium sulfate, the case argues. The filing explains that glucosamine, a natural substance taken as a supplement to help treat joint pain and symptoms of arthritis, is available in two forms: glucosamine sulfate and glucosamine hydrochloride. Per the lawsuit, consumers favor glucosamine sulfate and are willing to pay more for it because it is "clinically preferred" over glucosamine hydrochloride and commonly believed to perform better. By law, a food product such as the supplement at issue is misbranded if its label fails to list the name and quantity of each ingredient found inside, the suit says. ClassAction.org previously helped with this glucosamine supplement lawsuit investigation. According to the case, the plaintiff, a Los Angeles resident, would not have paid as much for a bottle of Nature's Measure glucosamine sulfate, or purchased it at all, if he had known the supplement did not in fact contain glucosamine sulfate, as advertised. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased Nature's Measure-brand glucosamine sulfate dietary supplements within the applicable statutes of limitations period. [GN] DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in McConnell Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MCCONNELL, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09105-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of proof. The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm, and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is inappropriate." DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members, it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their favor without their express consent would undermine public confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial system. DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on April 10, 2023. On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case. On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs' individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees and costs were awarded." DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and operations outsourcing services to the financial services and healthcare industries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42U70SV at no extra charge.[CC] DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Miser Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELODY MISER, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09023-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of proof. The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm, and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is inappropriate." DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members, it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their favor without their express consent would undermine public confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial system. DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on April 10, 2023. On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case. On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs' individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees and costs were awarded." DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and operations outsourcing services to the financial services and healthcare industries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mn3MSA at no extra charge.[CC] DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Neff Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP NEFF, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09107-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of proof. The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm, and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is inappropriate." DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members, it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their favor without their express consent would undermine public confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial system. DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on April 10, 2023. On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case. On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs' individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees and costs were awarded." DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and operations outsourcing services to the financial services and healthcare industries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41tVDA0 at no extra charge.[CC] DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Revis Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTY HILL REVIS, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09082-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of proof. The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm, and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is inappropriate." DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members, it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their favor without their express consent would undermine public confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial system. DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on April 10, 2023. On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case. On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs' individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees and costs were awarded." DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and operations outsourcing services to the financial services and healthcare industries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41C6NCG at no extra charge.[CC] DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Robinson Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES ROBINSON, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09092-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of proof. The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm, and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is inappropriate." DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members, it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their favor without their express consent would undermine public confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial system. DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on April 10, 2023. On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case. On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs' individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees and costs were awarded." DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and operations outsourcing services to the financial services and healthcare industries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ma8q5c at no extra charge.[CC] DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Rutkowski Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICK RUTKOWSKI v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-00705-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of proof. The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm, and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is inappropriate." DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members, it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their favor without their express consent would undermine public confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial system. DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on April 10, 2023. On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case. On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs' individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees and costs were awarded." DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and operations outsourcing services to the financial services and healthcare industries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I8yLz6 at no extra charge.[CC] DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Sutton Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON SUTTON, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09052-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of proof. The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm, and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is inappropriate." DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members, it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their favor without their express consent would undermine public confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial system. DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on April 10, 2023. On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case. On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs' individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees and costs were awarded." DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and operations outsourcing services to the financial services and healthcare industries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42zQnMG at no extra charge.[CC] DXC TECHNLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class suit in Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DXC Technology Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the securities class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. The action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected performance. The putative class of plaintiffs includes all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to the offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC. The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome of the substantially similar federal action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021. Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order permitting additional briefing by the parties. In March 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss. In August 2022, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, but permitted Plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint. In September 2022, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss. In January 2023, the Court issued an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In March 2023, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a trial date for September 2025. The case is now in discovery. The Company believes that the final remaining lawsuit described above is also without merit, and intends to vigorously defend it. DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides information technology services and solutions primarily in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia. EQUIFAX INFO: June 26 Extension of Expert Reports Submission Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O., Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC. Case No. 1:21-cv-02056-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Parties file a joint motion to modify scheduling order: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline The Plaintiff's Reply in May 12, 2023 May 26, 2023 further support of Class Certification: Affirmative Expert Reports May 15, 2023 May 26, 2023 Exchanged: Responsive Expert Reports June 19, 2023 June 26, 2023 Equifax provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MLUfoh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, 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 lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 Facsimile: (973) 282-8603 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com FCA US: VanGee Suit Removed to E.D. Texas ----------------------------------------- The case styled as Tim VanGee, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Stellantis N.V., Case No. CV23-00102 was removed from the 235th Judicial District Court of Cooke County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on April 28, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00375-SDJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive service parts and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Givens Emerson, Jr., Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Phone: (800) 551-8649 Fax: (501) 286-4659 Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Kamran Adam Anwar, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP - DALLAS 2100 Ross Avenue Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (972) 629-7122 Fax: (972) 629-7171 Email: kanwar@thompsoncoburn.com FORD MOTOR: McCabe Sues Over Undisclosed Transmission Defect ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel McCabe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-10829-FDS (D. Mass., April 18, 2023), is brought on behalf of all similarly situated persons ("Class Members") who purchased or leased a Ford vehicle equipped with a 10R80 10-speed transmission ("10R80" or "Transmission") that were designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased by Defendant or Defendant's parent, subsidiary, or affiliates thereof; arising from the Defendant's breach of its obligations and duties, including the Defendant's omissions and failure to disclose that, as a result of the Transmission Defect, Class Vehicles may shift harshly, slip gears, hesitate, or surge, creating an unreasonable risk of serious bodily harm and death.. The Defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased Ford Expeditions, Mustangs, Rangers, F-150s, and Navigators equipped with the 10R80 from at least 2017 to present ("Class Vehicles" or "Vehicles"). The Defendant knew or should have known that the Vehicles contain one or more design and/or manufacturing defects, including but not limited to defects contained in the Vehicles' 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission that can shift harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, clunk, and hesitate between gears. Some consumers have even reported experiencing a sudden loss of power while driving their vehicle. An automatic transmission is essentially an automatic gear shifter. Instead of manually shifting the gears with a clutch, the automatic transmission shifts gears on its own. The transmission acts as a powertrain to convert the vehicle engine's force into a controlled source of power. Accordingly, drivers need a properly functioning automatic transmission in order to safely and reliably accelerate and decelerate their Vehicles. A common design and/or manufacturing defect in Ford's 10R80 transmissions is a potentially life-threatening safety issue, and Ford has refused to recall or replace the defective Transmissions. Ford's warranty states that "dealers will, without charge, repair, replace, or adjust all parts on your vehicle that malfunction or fail during normal use during the applicable coverage period due to a manufacturing defect in factory-supplied materials or factory workmanship." Upon information and belief, and based on interactions between Plaintiff and Ford authorized dealers, Ford refuses to replace or repair the Transmissions and merely states that the abrupt and harsh shifting is normal. Prior to purchasing or leasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and other Class Members did not know that the Class Vehicles would abruptly and harshly shift due to the Transmission Defect and cause their vehicle to unexpectedly surge, hesitate, and jerk. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that the Class Vehicles are defective and suffer from the Transmission Defect and are not fit for their intended purpose of providing consumers with safe and reliable transportation. Nevertheless, Defendant failed to disclose this defect to Plaintiff and Class Members at the time of purchase or lease and thereafter. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known about the Transmission Defect at the time of sale or lease, as well as the associated costs related to the Transmission Defect, Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them. As a result of their reliance on Defendant's omissions and/or misrepresentations, Plaintiff and other owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered ascertainable loss of money, property, and/or loss in value of their Class Vehicles, says the complaint. The Plaintiff leased a 2019 Ford Ranger with the 10R80 10-speed transmission. Ford, through its various entities, designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells its vehicles in this District and many other locations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Suite PH Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 917-471-1894 Facsimile: 310-496-3176 Email: astraus@milberg.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Leland Belew, Esq. Ryan P. McMillan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: 865-247-0080 Facsimile: 865-522-0049 Email: gcoleman@milberg.com lbelew@milberg.com rmcmillan@milberg.com - and - Mitchell Breit, Esq. Tyler Litke, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: 630-796-0903 Facsimile: 865-522-0049 Email: mbreit@milberg.com tlitke@milberg.com - and - John R. Fabry, Esq. THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305 Round Rock, Texas 78664 Phone: 512-671-7277 Facsimile: 512-238-0275 Email: JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com - and - Sidney F. Robert, Esq. BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES 300 Fannin, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: 713-225-1682 Facsimile: 713-225-1785 Email: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com - and - Mark R. Miller, Esq. WALLACE MILLER LLP 150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-589-6280 Facsimile: 312-275-8174 Email: mrm@wallacemiller.com GEICO ADVANTAGE: Class Certification Order in Angell Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Philip Angell; Steven Brown; Tonnie Beck; Tammy Morris; Dawn Burnham, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. GEICO Advantage Insurance Company; Geico Indemnity Company; Government Employees Insurance Company; GEICO County Mutual Insurance Company; GEICO Choice Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 22-20093 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court' order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of insureds claiming that GEICO failed to fully compensate them for the total loss of their vehicles under their respective insurance policies. The district court held that the Plaintiffs had standing to sue on behalf of the proposed class and subsequently granted class certification. GEICO now appeals both holdings. The appeal arises out of a class-action lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs-Appellees Philip Angell, Steven Brown, Tonnie Beck, Tammy Morris, and Dawn Burnham against Defendants-Appellants GEICO Advantage Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO County Mutual Insurance Co., and GEICO Choice Insurance Co. (collectively, "GEICO"). Each Plaintiff possessed a vehicle that was subject to a private passenger auto insurance policy with a different Defendant-Appellant (collectively, the "Policies"). Each Plaintiff's vehicle was involved in an auto collision while insured under one of the Policies. The contractual language at issue in the case is identical across all of the Policies. The Policies provide collision and comprehensive coverage for a "loss" sustained by a covered vehicle. The Policies define a "loss" as a direct and accidental loss of or damage to: a. The auto, including its equipment; or b. Other insured property. They limit GEICO's liability for a "loss" to the lesser of the: "a. Actual cash value of the stolen or damaged property; b. Amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other of like kind and quality; or c. Amount stated in the Declarations of this policy." Actual cash value ("ACV") is defined as the replacement cost of the auto or property less depreciation and/or betterment. In March 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint, which they amended twice. In their second amended complaint (the "Complaint"), the Plaintiffs allege that the Policies require GEICO to remit the ACV for a covered vehicle involved in a covered loss if the amount necessary to repair the vehicle (plus any salvage value) exceeds the value of the vehicle prior to the loss, that is, if there is a complete or "total" loss of the vehicle. The Complaint further alleges that under Texas law, ACV includes a covered vehicle's sales tax, title fees, and registration fees (collectively, the "Purchasing Fees"). It also alleges that the Plaintiffs did not receive ACV payments that included the entirety of their Purchasing Fees. No Plaintiff claims that he or she has been denied payment of all three Purchasing Fees. The Complaint contains six causes of action. The first five counts, each brought by a specific named Plaintiff against his or her respective insurance company and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated individuals, allege that GEICO breached the Policies by failing to pay the entirety of their corresponding the Plaintiff's Purchasing Fees. Of the five named Plaintiffs, not one claims that he or she was denied payment of all three of the individual fees that collectively comprise the Purchasing Fees. Specifically, Angell, Beck, Morris, and Burnham (all of whom owned their vehicles), allege that they are owed registration fees (having received payments for their sales tax and title fees), while Brown (who leased his vehicle), alleges that he is owed both his registration fees and sales tax. No named Plaintiff alleges that he or she is owed his or her title fees. The sixth count, brought by all Plaintiffs against GEICO on behalf of the entire proposed class, alleges a violation of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (the "TPPCA"). In July 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification, seeking to represent a class defined as: "All individuals insured under a Texas auto physical damage policy issued by GEICO who (1) made a first-party property damage claim from March 5, 2016 through the date on which the Class is certified, (2) where such claim was determined to be and adjusted as a total loss," pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The district court issued an order granting class certification in November 2021. In its order, the court first addressed GEICO's argument that Plaintiffs lacked standing to represent their proposed class, determining that each Plaintiff met Article III's standing requirement because he or she alleged an underpayment of ACV traceable to GEICO's alleged breach of contract. The court then turned to the issue of class certification, ruling that the Plaintiffs could adequately represent their proposed class and that the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. It also certified the class with respect to the Plaintiffs' TPPCA claim, stating that there was no reason to distinguish between that claim and the other claims for breach of the Policies because nothing in the TPPCA would excuse an insurer from liability for TPPCA damages if it was liable under the terms of the policy but delayed payment beyond the applicable statutory deadline. After granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the court later clarified that the proposed class definition be modified so that it extended "only to covered total-loss claims and claims submitted under collision and/or comprehensive coverage." Therefore, the amended class includes: All individuals insured under a Texas auto physical damage policy issued by GEICO who (1) made a first-party property damage claim under collision and/or comprehensive coverage determined by GEICO to be a covered total-loss claim from March 5, 2016 through the date on which the Class is certified, (2) where such claim was determined to be and adjusted as a total loss. GEICO subsequently appealed the district court's order certifying the class. It challenges both Plaintiffs' standing as class representatives and the district court's certification of the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Fifth Circuit finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated their standing under either the class certification or standing approach. It says the Plaintiffs' interests are sufficiently aligned with those of the class. The remaining elements of standing are not in dispute, i.e., causation and redressability. If the Plaintiffs were indeed harmed, no one contests that this harm must have been caused by GEICO's underpayment of ACV. And such an underpayment may be remedied through money damages. Because the Plaintiffs have class standing, the Fifth Circuit turns to the remaining issues concerning class certification. It finds that (i) the course of conduct is virtually the same across the alleged deprivations of each Purchasing Fee, i.e., whether GEICO breached the Policies; (ii) it was accordingly within the district court's discretion to rule that the Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives; (iii) the Plaintiffs articulate a reasonably ascertainable formula; and (iv) whether GEICO's payments were reasonable does not preclude class certification so the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class as to the TPPCA claim. In view of its analysis, the Fifth Circuit affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/3xzup from Leagle.com. GEICO GENERAL: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Gardner Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CARMEN GARDNER AND MARK RUDOLPH, Appellants v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, Case No. 2022-CA-0306-ME (Ky. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirms the Jefferson Circuit Court's Feb. 11, 2022 order: (1) granting judgment in favor of Appellee GEICO; and (2) denying the Appellants' motion to certify a class pursuant to CR 23 as moot. The Appellants each had separate motor vehicle insurance policies with GEICO, which included basic reparation benefits ("BRB") of up to $10,000 per person per accident. Gardner was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 6, 2017; Rudolph was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 29, 2017. Gardner and Rudolph each submitted timely notifications to GEICO along with applications for BRB. Gardner sought BRB for medical care she received in March and April 2017 from Exacta Care and Kentuckiana Pain Associates totaling $10,197.30. Rudolph sought BRB for medical care he received in September and October 2017 from Kort, LLC and Shannon S. Voor, PhD, PLLC, totaling $2,718. After receiving the Appellants' respective BRB applications, GEICO tendered payment to the Appellants' medical providers along with Explanation of Reviews ("EORs"). The EORs indicated that GEICO had reduced certain line-item charges billed by the medical providers. In total, Gardner submitted medical bills to GEICO totaling $10,197.30, but GEICO tendered only $5,632.66 to Gardner's medical providers. Similarly, Rudolph submitted medical bills totaling $2,718.00, but GEICO tendered only $1,460.58 as payment for those bills. The medical providers cashed the checks GEICO tendered them without any indication that they were doing so under a reservation of right. Despite having provided affidavits as part of this action that they have not written off the balances, none of the providers has sought payment directly from either Gardner or Rudolph. After learning that GEICO had reduced their bills, the Appellants filed a putative class action in Jefferson Circuit Court seeking to recover damages as a result of GEICO making a unilateral reduction in payment of its insureds' incurred medical charges, leaving its insureds legally responsible for the balance and subject to a lawsuit or collection efforts from the medical provider. As relief, they demanded payment from GEICO for the difference between the submitted bills and the reduced amounts actually paid, 18% interest on those outstanding balances, and attorney fees. Additionally, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including the protection of a release and indemnification from GEICO on all medical bills GEICO unilaterally reduced and only partially paid to their medical providers. After being served with the Appellants' complaint, GEICO moved the trial court for an extension of time to answer or file a dispositive motion. In the interim, on July 18, 2018, the Appellants filed their motion for class certification kicking off a multi-year period of motions and related briefings, including several hearings before the trial court concerning class certification as well as the legal viability of the Appellants' substantive claims against GEICO. Ultimately, the Appellants' motions for class certification, for summary judgment, and for declaratory/injunctive relief, along with GEICO's motion to dismiss, came before the trial court for determination. On Feb. 18, 2022, the trial court entered an order addressing the pending motions. It determined that the Appellants had failed to allege individually viable legal claims and granted judgment in favor of GEICO. It then denied their motion for class certification as moot. The appeal followed. The Court of Appeals opines that the appeal is not so much a review of whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied certification, as it is about whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to GEICO on the Appellants' individual claims. If summary judgment was properly granted, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the class certification motion as moot. If summary judgment was improperly granted, then the class certification decision is clearly not moot and must be addressed on remand. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals turns to substantive issues with respect to the viability of the Appellants' individual claims. It finds that the notation on GEICO's EORs cited KRS 304.39-245 and was offered as payment for what it believed was the reasonable amount for the care provided to Appellants. By cashing the checks without reserving their rights, the medical providers agreed to accept the amount tendered as full payment cutting off their right to pursue Appellants for the balances. Having accepted the amount tendered without a reservation, they are precluded by statute from collecting the balance from their patients. The Appellants' complaint is clear that their claims are predicated on the fact that GEICO's actions left them legally responsible for the balance and subject to a lawsuit or collection efforts from their medical providers. However, the medical providers have no right to seek payment from the Appellants, meaning the Appellants have no claim against GEICO. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to GEICO. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the Jefferson Circuit Court. All concur. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion is available at https://rb.gy/bnvit from Leagle.com. Damon B. Willis -- damonwillislawyer@yahoo.com -- C. David Ewing -- ewingwillislaw@yahoo.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEFS FOR THE APPELLANTS. Edward H. Stopher -- estopher@bsg-law.com -- Earl L. Martin, III -- emartin@bsg-law.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over GM's 8-Speed Transmission --------------------------------------------------------------- The Car Guide reports that a class action lawsuit against General Motors of Canada has been filed in the Court of King's Bench for Saskatchewan on behalf of anyone who purchased or leased a new or used GM vehicle equipped with an eight-speed automatic transmission. Similar class actions exist in the U.S., some dating back to spring 2019, but it's the first one specifically targeting GM Canada. The lawsuit alleges the Hydra-Matic 8L90 or Hydra-Matic 8L45 transmission may produce "a terrifying jolt or shake while driving," which can cause "delays in acceleration and stopping, as well as other dangerous driving conditions." Possible causes include a defective torque converter, excess friction between transmission components and bad transmission fluid. The eight-speed autobox can be found in numerous vehicles built on a rear-wheel-drive platform, mostly sports cars, luxury sedans, trucks and SUVs. Below is the full list of models identified in the class action lawsuit: 2016-2023 Chevrolet Camaro 2015-2023 Chevrolet Colorado 2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette 2017-2023 Chevrolet Express (2.8L diesel engine/4.3L gas engine only) 2015-2023 Chevrolet Silverado 2016-2020 Cadillac ATS-V, CT6 and CTS-V 2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade 2015-2019 GMC Canyon 2017-2023 GMC Savana (2.8L diesel engine/4.3L gas engine only) 2015-2019 GMC Sierra 2015-2017 GMC Yukon Denali XL According to the lawsuit, General Motors has known about the problem for years but has failed to adequately address it. "Instead, GM has tried to convince customers that the problem is normal, including the dramatic 'surging' or 'unexpected acceleration' that are characteristic of the defect. This has led many customers to believe that the issue is not serious or that they are simply experiencing a normal driving condition. However, the reality is that these transmissions pose a serious safety risk to drivers and passengers alike." A judge in Saskatchewan will decide whether to certify the class action or not later this year. For more information, click here. [GN] GEOSNAPSHOT PTY: Moomaw Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Adam Moomaw, Regan Moomaw, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Geosnapshot Pty Ltd., Geosnapshot, Inc., Case No. 23 LA 365 was removed from the Circuit Court for the 20th Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on April 21, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01321-GCS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. GeoSnapShot -- https://geosnapshot.com/ -- is your all in one media management solution..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Joseph Limoli, Esq. DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C. 211 N. Broadway, Suite 4050 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 932-3232 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: matthew@thedriscollfirm.com - and - John J. Driscoll, Esq. DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC 1311 Avenida Juan Ponce de Leon, 6th Floor San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (618) 444-6049 Fax: (314) 932-3233 Email: john@jjlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: John C. Ellis, Esq. ELLIS LEGAL P.C. 200 West Madison, Ste. 2670 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 967-7629 Email: jellis@ellislegal.com GKN DRIVELINE: Court Decertifies 3 Classes in Mebane Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES MEBANE and ANGELA WORSHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18CV892 (M.D.N.C.), Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina: a. granted the Defendant's Motion to Decertify the Class and Collective Action; and b. denies as moot both parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment. On Nov. 5, 2020, the Court conditionally certified the Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and certified the following North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA") class under Rule 23 ("Rounding Class"): "Individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant GKN's North Carolina facilities on the manufacturing floor in non-managerial positions, were not compensated all promised, earned, and accrued wages due to Defendant's rounding policy, including, but not limited to, compensation for all hours worked up to forty (40) in a week and for hours worked above forty (40) in a week within two years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." After the Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, the Court certified an additional Rule 23 class on Aug. 2, 2022, including employees that worked during their scheduled lunch breaks and were impacted by the Defendant's "Automatic Deduction Policy" ("Automatic Deduction Class"). The Court defined that class as: "Individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant GKN's North Carolina facilities on the manufacturing floor in non-managerial positions, were not compensated all promised, earned, and accrued wages for hours worked during unpaid meals due to Defendant's automatic deduction policy, including, but not limited to, compensation for all hours worked up to forty (40) in a week and for hours worked above forty (40) in a week within two years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." On Aug. 16, 2022, the Defendant requested reconsideration of the Court's order certifying the Automatic Deduction Class arguing that (1) the Court incorrectly certified the Automatic Deduction Class without requiring Plaintiff Mebane to establish that the class is ascertainable and (2) the Automatic Deduction Class is an improper merits-based fail-safe class. On Nov. 16, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to reconsider and found that modification of the Automatic Deduction Class definition was necessary to avoid it being an impermissible fail-safe class. It requested that the Plaintiffs submit a proposed redefinition of the Automatic Deduction Class. The Plaintiffs then proposed the following redefinition: "All Individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant GKN's North Carolina facilities on the manufacturing floor in non-managerial positions, subjected to an automatic 30-minute meal break deduction, and who have or may have worked through or during unpaid meal breaks without compensation at least once at any time within two years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." The Defendant now moves to decertify the Plaintiffs' FLSA collective action, the Rule 23 Rounding Class, and the Rule 23 Automatic Deduction Class. It also moves for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' collective and class claims related to the Rounding Class, as well as Plaintiff James Mebane's individual claims. The Plaintiffs likewise move for partial summary judgment on their claims related to both the Rounding Class and Automatic Deduction Class. Judge Biggs first determines whether both the Rounding Class and Automatic Deduction Class can still satisfy the requirements for collective and class certification under the FLSA and Rule 23. She finds that the Plaintiffs' rounding claim cannot move forward as a collective action given the individualized inquiries necessary to assess the Defendant's liability for their pre- and post-shift work. The record is replete with evidence highlighting disparate factual settings of each individual plaintiff and the procedural unfeasibility of moving forward with this collective action. Accordingly, in applying this heightened fact-specific standard, Judge Biggs finds that the Plaintiffs are not "similarly situated" and cannot proceed as a collective action under the FLSA. She therefore finds that decertification is warranted. She further finds that the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Rounding Class must be decertified for the same reasons outlined in her discussion of the collective action. With respect to the Automatic Deduction Class, Judge Biggs finds that the individualized factfinding necessary to establish these elements warrants decertification of the Automatic Deduction Class. In addition to the deficiency of whether plaintiffs actually worked during meal breaks, says without any common basis for determining whether the Defendant knew of unpaid meal break work, she follows the guidance of several other courts and finds the Automatic Deduction Class must be decertified. Judge Briggs concludes that the evidentiary record makes clear that that both the automatic deduction claims and rounding claims implicate highly individualized facts and circumstances unique to each Plaintiff, making it untenable to allow the matter to proceed on a class and collective basis. The Plaintiff advances no meaningful way to address such issues. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to decertify the FLSA collective action, Rule 23 Rounding Class, Rule 23 Automatic Deduction Class is granted, and both parties' motions for summary judgment are denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://rb.gy/uwxlf from Leagle.com. GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Lamons Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kerry Lamons, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Glanbia Performance Nutrition NA, Inc. doing business as: Optimum Nutrition doing business as: BSN; Does 1 Through 100, inclusive; Case No. CVRI2300961 was removed from the Riverside Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00654-ODW-KK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Glanbia Performance Nutrition -- https://www.glanbia.com/ -- is the number one sports nutrition company in the world, with leading brands in performance and lifestyle nutrition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Mackey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY 660 Baker Street, Building A, Suite 201 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (412) 370-9110 Email: bobmackeyesq@aol.com The Defendants are represented by: William P Cole, Esq. Matthew R Orr, Esq. Richard L. Hyde, Esq. AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN LLP 515 South Flower Street 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 933-2330 Fax: (312) 884-7352 Email: william@amintalati.com matt@amintalati.com richard@amintalati.com GLOBAL PLASMA: Fishlock Sues Over Deceptive Air Treatment Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Fishlock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL PLASMA SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00522-UNA (D. Del., May 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for deceit and fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, unjust enrichment, and violations of State Consumer Protection Statutes and the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant preys on people desperate to cleanse the air and protect themselves from ailments including the COVID-19 virus. The Defendant represents that its products that used needlepoint bipolar ionization technology eliminate the COVID-19 virus, even though these products do not. To further its deception -- while also hiding significant defects in its products -- Defendant deceptively represents company-funded testing as "independent" while also using test conditions that are not representative of the real-world use of the products, says the suit. The Defendant's representations that its products are a safe technology to cleanse the air of the COVID-19 virus is false, misleading, and designed to deceive consumers, including Plaintiff, into paying a price premium and choosing its products over a competitor's product, the suit asserts. Global Plasma Solutions, Inc. is an indoor air quality company based in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Dennis C. Reich, Esq. REICH & BINSTOCK LLP 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (713) 622-7271 Facsimile: (713) 623-8724 E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com - and - Michael A. Mills, Esq. THE MILLS LAW FIRM 8811 Gaylord Drive Suite 200 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (832) 548-4414 Facsimile: (832) 327-7443 E-mail: mickey@millsmediation.com - and - Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons, Ste. 102 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (888) 412-5291 E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Hall Files TCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodwill Industries of the Southern Piedmont, Inc. The case is styled as Debra Hall, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Look Both Ways Insurance LLC doing business as: Millennium Health Advisors, Case No. 3:23-cv-00250-RJC-SCR (W.D.N.C., April 28, 2023). The nature of suit is stated Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Goodwill Industries of The Southern Piedmont, Inc. -- https://goodwillsp.org/ -- operates as a non profit organization. The Organization provides job training and employment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Christopher Schehr, Esq. SCHEHR LAW PLLC 101 N McDowell St Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: (704) 900-0336 Fax: (980) 326-1717 Email: chris@schehrlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Collects Health Data Without Consent, Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE I; and JOHN DOE II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02431 (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's unlawful tracking, collection, and monetization of Americans' private health information from Health Care Provider web properties in the United States. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Google's unlawful tracking, collection and monetization of Health Information occurs through the Google Source Code. When a patient interacts with a Health Care Provider web property where Google Source Code is deployed, the patient is effectively tagged by Google via Google Source Code, Google Cookies, and other identifiers. Almost immediately, the Google Source Code deposits and accesses Google Cookies on the patient's device. Google's tracking, collection and monetization of patients' Health Information is in violation of federal, state, and common law that provide strict protections and safeguards regarding the inherently private and sensitive nature of this information, says the suit. GOOGLE LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in internet related services and products. The Company focuses on web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 Email: kiesel@kiesel.law koncius@kiesel.law ramirez@kiesel.law - and - Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. Eric Johnson, Esq. An Truong, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 Email: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com atruong@simmonsfirm.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Bid to Decertify Hart Suit Due June 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN OLIVIA HART, et al, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a GEICO, Case No. 4:21-cv-00859-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend all briefing deadlines: -- Deadline for GEICO's Opposition May 29, 2023 to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: -- Dispositive Motions: June 7, 2023 -- Motion to Decertify the June 7, 2023 Collective Action: -- The Plaintiffs' Reply in June 28, 2023 Support of Their Motion for Class Certification: GEICO is a private American auto insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43j5GJq at no extra charge.[CC] H&M HENNES: E.D. Missouri Grants Bid to Dismiss Lizama Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ABRAHAM LIZAMA, et al., Plaintiffs v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:22 CV 1170 RWS (E.D. Mo.), Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, dismisses the Plaintiffs' complaint. Abraham Lizama purchased a sweater from Defendant retailer H&M's "conscious choice" collection. According to Lizama, he believed this meant his sweater was made using "more sustainable and environmentally friendly" manufacturing practices. According to Lizama, however, this product is not "environmentally friendly," and he felt so misled by the representation that he now brings a nationwide putative class action over the alleged misrepresentation. Lizama asserts claims under Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) as well as claims for unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. He asks this Court to name him as the class representative to prosecute the MMPA and Missouri state law claims on behalf of a subclass of Missouri residents who purchased any "conscious choice" product from H&M (the Missouri subclass), in addition to naming him as one of two class representatives to prosecute nationwide class claims for unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who did the same (the nationwide subclass). Mark Doten is the second class representative named in the complaint. He is a California resident who made a similar "conscious choice" purchase from H&M in California. He brings claims similar to Lizama under California law and seeks to represent California residents who purchased "conscious choice" items in California (the California subclass) as well as the nationwide subclass. H&M moves to dismiss the complaint and/or strike the class action allegations for a litany of reasons: the complaint fails to adequately allege the elements of the state law claims; the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek injunctive or equitable relief and to seek relief for products they did not purchase; the nationwide class allegations should be stricken because there is no possibility that a nationwide class of state law fraud claims will ever be certified; and, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the non-resident's claims. Plaintiffs have responded to each of these arguments, and the issues are fully briefed. First, Judge Sippel says there is no dispute that Doten's claims do not arise out of or relate H&M's contacts with Missouri because he alleges that he is a California resident who made a "conscious choice" purchase in California. Hence, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over H&M with respect to the claims brought by Doten. Nor can the Court exercise pendant jurisdiction over Doten's claims by virtue of its jurisdiction over Lizama's claims, as it lacks personal jurisdiction over any single claim brought by Doten and the California subclass against H&M. As the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over H&M with respect to claims brought by Doten, Judge Sippel dismisses all claims brought by Doten (Counts VI, VII, VIII, and Counts IX, X, and XI to the extent brought by Doten) for lack of personal jurisdiction. He need not, and therefore does not, reach the personal jurisdiction issue with respect to the claims of putative nonresident absent class members raised by H&M in its brief because all remaining claims brought by Lizama are subject to dismissal. Second, Judge Sippel says the Court may take judicial notice of H&M's publicly available website without converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment, as Lizama alleges that these misrepresentations come from H&M's website. He denies Lizama's motion to strike the exhibits is denied as the Court is not constrained to accept Lizama's allegations about what the website says and may instead consider the content of the website in its the entirety when determining whether any false statements were made. He denies Lizama's motion to strike Exhibits 10 and 11 for the same reason, as Lizama's complaint repeatedly cites these two exhibits. He denies as moot the motion to strike with respect to Exhibit 9, which the Court has not considered in deciding the motion. Third, Judge Sippel dismisses Lizama's Missouri statutory and common law claims for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). He finds that Lizama's claims all depend upon his allegations that H&M's representations about the conscious choice line are deceptive and misleading. He finds that (i) Lizama's claims of consumer deception based on statements that H&M never made must be dismissed for failure to state a claim; (ii) Lizama's claims that he was misled into believing something that was never represented by H&M must fail; and (iii) there is no basis for the reasonable consumer to be misled about the materials used by H&M in its conscious choice collection or its relative sustainability in comparison to virgin polyester. As a result, the complaint fails to set forth cognizable claims under the consumer deception statutes (Counts I to V) and must be dismissed. Fourth, Count III seeks to set forth a distinct MMPA violation based upon omission rather than misrepresentation. Judge Sippel holds that reasonable consumers can ascertain the exact materials used in their garments before purchase, review H&M's discussion of the environmental impacts of those materials, and then independently verify whether these representations are consistent with other, publicly available data. Lizama has failed to identify any material facts regarding the composition or environmental impact of H&M's conscious choice materials that are not already known to the reasonable consumer prior to purchase. Without an actionable omission by H&M, Count III fails and must be dismissed. Fifth, Count V alleges that H&M's alleged misrepresentations constitute an "unfair practice" under the MMPA because they violate the Federal Trade Commission's Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims. Judge Sippel holds that a H&M has substantiated and qualified its representations with respect to the conscious choice clothing line, the complaint fails to allege a violation of the Green Guides. Count V is dismissed. Finally, Lizama's common law claims (Count IX for unjust enrichment, Count X for negligent misrepresentation, and Count XI for fraud) are based on the same allegations of consumer deception, and also require a misrepresentation to be actionable. Accordingly, they must be dismissed. As Lizama has failed to establish that H&M's representations were not factually accurate Counts X and XI must be dismissed. Lizama's claim for unjust enrichment in Count IX is based on the same nonactionable conduct as his statutory claims and is therefore also dismissed. Because Judge Sippel is dismissing the complaint for the reasons he stated, he need not, and therefore does not, consider the alternative arguments of H&M in support of dismissal. Accordingly, the amended motion to dismiss and/or strike is granted in part only as set out, and Doten's claims are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Lizama's claims are dismissed for failure to state claims against the Defendant. The Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied in part and denied as moot in part. A separate Judgment in accordance with the Memorandum and Order is entered. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://rb.gy/elklh from Leagle.com. HITACHI ASTEMO: Settles Automotive Parts Antitrust Suit for $6M --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Hitachi Astemo and KYB agreed to pay a combined $6 million to resolve claims they worked with other auto parts manufacturers to fix the price of shock absorbers. The settlement benefits individuals and entities who purchased shock absorbers directly from Hitachi Astemo and/or KYB between Jan. 1, 1995, and Sept. 18, 2021. Several companies, including Hitachi Astemo and KYB, are accused of conspiring to fix the prices of automotive parts in violation of federal antitrust laws. The two companies are specifically accused of fixing the prices of shock absorbers, part of the suspension systems in vehicles. Hitachi Astemo is an automotive parts manufacturer based in Japan. KYB is a shocks and struts manufacturer that does business around the world, including in North America. Hitachi Astemo and KYB haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $6 million settlement to resolve the shock absorbers antitrust class action lawsuit. Hitachi Astemo will contribute $2.5 million while KYB will pay $3.5 million. These settlements are the latest in a series of settlements in the antitrust multidistrict litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, direct purchasers can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid in documented shock absorber purchases. Exact distribution details are not available at this time. The exclusion deadline was May 1, 2023. The final approval hearing for the shock absorbers settlement is scheduled for June 8, 2023. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 22, 2023. Who's Eligible Individuals and entities who purchased shock absorbers directly from Hitachi Astemo and/or KYB between Jan. 1, 1995, and Sept. 18, 2021 Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Documentation of shock absorber purchases Claim Form Deadline 06/22/2023 Case Name In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:12-md-02311, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Final Hearing 06/08/2023 Settlement Website AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com Claims Administrator Shock Absorbers Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation P.O. Box 3170 Portland, OR 97208-3170 877-393-1069 Class Counsel Steven A Kanner FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC Joseph C Kohn KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC Gregory P Hansel PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP William G Caldes SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC Defense Counsel Kendall Millard Bradley Love Alexander Barnstead BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Craig P Seebald Alden L Atkins VINSON & ELKINS LLP Clayton Everett Jr MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN] HOME DEPOT: Harter Sues Over False Product Labels of Lanterns ------------------------------------------------------------- Shan Harter, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Satco Products, Inc., a New York corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03705 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketing and sale of exterior post-mounted and wall-mounted lanterns. Satco manufactures, and Home Depot markets, sells and distributes over the Internet and in its retail stores, exterior post-mounted and wall-mounted lanterns with "clear beveled glass" shade, and are available in black or white finish. In this complaint, Plaintiff Harter claims that the lanterns' shade are not constructed entirely of clear beveled glass as represented. He asserts that each of the eight panels comprising the shade are partially constructed of clear beveled plastic. He also alleges claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the New York Consumer Law for Deceptive Acts and Practices. Home Depot is a public corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware. Its corporate headquarters is located at 2455 Paces Ferry Road S.E., Suite #C-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30339. It promotes, markets, distributes, and sells the lanterns to consumers nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 850 3rd Ave, Suite 402 Brooklyn, NY 11232 Telephone: (212) 738-6839 Facsimile: (813) 222-2439 E-mail: jsedgh@forthepeople.com - and- Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca K. Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 N. Franklin St. 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com fburne@forthepeople.com - and - Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Colleen M. Auer, Esq. AUER RYAN, P.C. 20987 N. John Wayne Parkway #B104-374 Maricopa, AZ 85139 Telephone: (520) 705-7332 E-mail: eryan@auer-ryan.com cauer@auer-ryan.com HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Dziura Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., filed an appeal from the Court's Decision and Order dated April 11, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled MARIANNA DZIURA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., HDA, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., and H.D.A. Inc., Plaintiffs v. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., HDA, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., and H.D.A. Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 159998/2018, in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, as well as damages arising from Defendant's breach of contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of New York and are presently or were formerly employed by Defendant to provide personal care, assistance, health-related tasks and other home care services to Defendant's clients within the State of New York. The Defendant has maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of 10 hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation, the lawsuit says. On April 11, 2023, Judge Verna L. Saunders entered a Decision and Order that Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add Empro, Inc., HDA CDPAS, LLC, HDA NY, LLC and individual Joel Zupnick as defendants, is granted; that Plaintiffs' motion seeking certification of this action as a class action is granted in its entirety; that the part of the motion to appoint certain lead counsel is granted; and that the Court appoints Virginia & Ambinder, LLP as class counsel. The appellate case is captioned as MARIANNA DZIURA, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., HDA, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., and H.D.A. Inc., EMPRO, INC., HDA CDPAS, LLC, HDA NY, LLC, and JOEL ZUPNICK vs. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. et al., Case No. 2023-02379, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on May 11, 2023.[BN] HUMANA INC: Agrees to Settle 401(k) Fee Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Humana Inc. agreed to have litigation over its 401(k) plan fees resolved as a class action covering more than 48,000 people. The proposed class includes everyone covered by the Humana Retirement Savings Plan since April 2015, excluding the defendants and their immediate family members. The parties' stipulation, filed May 22, 2023 in the US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, also includes an agreement to dismiss claims levied against Humana's board of directors. [GN] HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Thomas Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CORRINE MORGAN THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-05725-RMI (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Eureka Division, grants the Defendants' requests for judicial notice and their motion to dismiss the operative complaint with prejudice. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-02), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, five individuals have sued Humboldt County (California), its Planning and Building Department, its Board of Supervisors, and six individual county officials. The five named Plaintiffs are Corrinne and Doug Thomas, Blu Graham, Rhonda Olson, and Cyro Glad -- all of whom find themselves embroiled in disputes related to the County's abatement efforts related to the appendages of illegal cannabis cultivation activity, as well as its non-cannabis code enforcement efforts. In addition to the County and its named subdivisions, the Plaintiffs have also sued John H. Ford (the Director of the Planning and Building Department), as well as the following five members of the County Board of Supervisors: Steve Madrone, Rex Bohn, Mike Wilson, Michelle Bushnell, and Natalie Arroyo. The Plaintiffs' class-action allegations are only advanced by Plaintiffs Corrine and Doug Thomas, Olson, and Glad; Plaintiff Graham was planning to be a class representative until the County suddenly agreed to dismiss his abatement order the week before filing the initial complaint. The Plaintiffs propose a class to be defined as such: all persons who are currently facing proposed penalties for cannabis-related Category 4 violations -- that were "levied" after Jan. 1, 2018 -- and who requested administrative hearings within 10 days of service but who still have not received a hearing for their appeal. They, and the members of the proposed class, reportedly will suffer under a litany of asserted policy failures by the County including -- inter alia -- the County's alleged issuance of cannabis-related code violations without adequate investigation or due regard for probable cause; its delays in providing administrative hearings; and, its failure to provide a jury at the administrative hearing. The Plaintiffs plead five causes of action: a claim asserting procedural due process violations focused on alleged defects in the County's administrative processes (Claim-1); a claim asserting substantive due process violations that, in essence, contends that the allegedly baseless allegations, coupled with the delays in the hearing process, and the alleged interference with the Plaintiffs' right to develop their properties while awaiting resolution of the code enforcement matters result in unconstitutional deprivations of life, liberty, or property when there is no governmental interest in the deprivation (Claim-2); a claim premised on the notion that the County's permitting fees, its settlement offers, its fines, and its fees all constitute "unconstitutional exactions" in violation of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine (Claim-3); a claim alleging the levying of excessive fines and fees under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (Claim-4); and, a claim asserting that the Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments should be construed to mandate jury trials in the sort of administrative hearings of which the Plaintiffs have complained, at least as to the factual determination of whether or not a landowner has violated the code (Claim-5). By way of relief, the Plaintiffs seek the certification of the aforementioned class; a bevy of declaratory and injunctive relief; an award of nominal damages for the named Plaintiffs; an award of $795.92 in damages or restitution in addition to nominal damages for Blu Graham; and, an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. Now pending before the court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice ("RFJN"); the Plaintiffs have filed a Response in Opposition and have objected to the Defendants' RFJN; the Defendants filed a Reply Brief, a Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice ("SRFJN"), as well as a Response to the Plaintiffs' objections to Defendants' RFJN. Because the Plaintiffs do not offer any factual dispute about any of the contents of the Defendants' RFJN cited (as well as the Defendants' SRFJN) -- namely, the records and reports of administrative agencies, as well as the local laws, ordinances and regulations, law enforcement records, a court decision, and the other official county records and documents -- judicial notice is proper. Thus, Judge Illman overrules the Plaintiffs' unspecific and unsupported objection and grants the Defendants' RFJN and SRFJN. As to the motion to dismiss, Judge Illman holds that as far as factual allegations go, the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint paints an implausible picture of the events underlying the mentioned claims. He says despite the FAC's length, overlooking its irrelevant content, and its conclusory and implausible assertions it becomes clear that the underlying facts do not, and simply cannot, entitle these Plaintiffs to any relief against these Defendants. Judge Illman finds that (i) given that no Plaintiff has sustained any actual injury in the nature of excessive fines and fees in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and given the fact that any future injury is speculative at best, the Plaintiffs lacks standing to pursue a claim that they have been subjected to "excessive fines and fees" as described in Claim-4; (ii) the Plaintiffs allegations about the blanket denial of land use permits (asserted in support of Claims 1, 2, and 3) are unripe and, therefore, are not considered; (iii) the Humboldt County rationally concluded that the public's interest would be better served by allowing for the selection of an administrative forum for the initial phase of the overall adjudication of its code enforcement case; and (iv) Defendants Madrone, Bohn, Wilson, Bushnell, Arroyo, and Ford are dismissed from action because each of the 5 causes of action is only brought "against the County," without so much as a mention of the individual defendants. In addition, Judge Illman holds that (i) Claim-1 (denial of procedural due process) is dismissed with prejudice because no Plaintiff has been subjected to any deprivation of any constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest, or any denial of adequate procedural protections, it cannot be plausibly contended that any of them have suffered any procedural due process violations; nor does it appear that these defects could be remedied by further amendment; (ii) Claim-2 (denial of substantive due process) is dismissed with prejudice because the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for any substantive due process violations and it is clear that this defect cannot be cured by further amendment; and (iii) Claim-3 (alleging violations of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine) is dismissed with prejudice because the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine and that it appears that further opportunities for amendment would be futile. The Court will issue a separate judgment as required by Rule 58(a). A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/mufrb from Leagle.com. ICON MEALS: Fails to Make Full Payment of Agricultural Goods ------------------------------------------------------------ DJD OPERATING, LLC D/B/A BUD'S SALADS, on behalf of itself and all other similarly-situated trust beneficiaries, Plaintiff v. ICON MEALS, INCORPORATED and TODD ABRAMS, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00438 (E.D. Tex., May 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for enforcement/breach of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 Trust (PACA), breach of fiduciary duties, and injuctive relief. The Plaintiff and ICON entered into multiple contracts under which Plaintiff agreed to sell certain goods, namely perishable agricultural commodities. ICON ordered the goods and agreed to purchase certain goods from Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also agreed to sell the goods to ICON for use in its business. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide full payment or otherwise deliver good funds to Plaintiff despite repeated demands from the Plaintiff or its representatives. As a direct result of the Defendants' failure to properly protect the PACA Trust Assets from dissipation, the Plaintiff has suffered damages which are covered under the PACA trust in the current aggregate amount of the produce items, plus further interest and contractually due costs of collection, including attorneys' fees, incurred in this action, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a grocery wholesaler and supplier of produce in wholesale quantities. Icon Meals, Inc. is a provider of fresh custom meals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Akerly, Esq. AKERLY LAW PLLC 2785 Rockbrook Drive, Suite 201 Lewisville, TX 75067 Telephone: (469) 444-1878 Facsimile: (469) 444-1829 E-mail: bakerly@akerlylaw.com IMA FINANCIAL: Faces Masterson Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- MARK MASTERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02223-HLT-ADM (D. Kan., May 18, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and invasion of privacy in connection with the data breach that was detected on or around October 19, 2022. On or about April 7, 2023, IMA sent a "Notice of Data Security Incident" to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the incident. Based on the Notice, IMA detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems on or around October 19, 2022, through which unauthorized parties gained access to certain company files that included Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address IMA's inadequate safeguarding of class members' private information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and class members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cyber-criminals. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, says the suit. Founded in 1973, IMA is an integrated financial services company based in Wichita, Kansas. IMA provides insurance and wealth management solutions through six entities: IMA, IMA Select, IMA Wealth, Eydent, Towerstone and Highwing. It employs over 1,800 people and generates approximately $1.5 billion in annual revenue. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 492-2826 E-mail: Brandon@boulware-law.com - and - 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: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com INDEPENDENT LIVING: Phung Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thi Nhat Le Phung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INDEPENDENT LIVING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-21470-CMA (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") of more than 4.2 million individuals. Prior to and through July 5, 2022, ILS obtained the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members, including by collecting it directly from Plaintiff and Class Members and/or by collecting it from their medical providers who were customers of ILS. Prior to and through July 5, 2022, ILS stored the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members unencrypted and in an Internet-accessible environment on ILS' computer network. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members, ILS assumed legal and equitable duties, under various statutes, regulations, and common law, to those individuals to protect and safeguard the information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Congress has passed legislation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") in order to protect this highly confidential data, because in the wrong hands, bad actors may target and exploit the most sensitive and vulnerable populations among the public. The Defendant is a covered business associate under HIPAA and is required to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and Security Rule. On March 14, 2023, ILS confirmed in a Supplemental Notice of Data Event posted on its website that it had suffered a data event that impacted personal and/or protected health information ("PII" and "PHI") (the "Data Breach"). ILS detected the attack on July 5, 2022 when some of its systems "became inaccessible" and later learned that an unauthorized actor obtained access to certain ILS systems between June 30, 2022 and July 5, 2022 and during the same period "some information stored on the ILS network was acquired by the unauthorized actor, and other information was accessible and potentially viewed." Even though ILS discovered the breach as early as July 5, 2022, the methodologies it employed in responding to the Data Breach delayed the provision of individual notice to the Data Breach victims for eight-and-one-half months. As a result of ILS's actions and this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class members had no idea their PII and PHI had been compromised, and that they were, and will continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various forms of personal, social, and financial harm, including the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive PII and PHI which will continue for their respective lifetimes. The Plaintiff and the Class experienced injury and damages from: theft of their PII and PHI and the resulting loss of privacy rights in that information; improper disclosure of their PII and PHI; loss of value of their PII and PHI; the amount of out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII and PHI; ongoing reasonable identity-defense and credit monitoring services made necessary as mitigation measures; ILS's retention of profits attributable to Plaintiff's and other customers' PII and PHI that ILS failed to adequately protect; economic and non-economic impacts that flow from imminent, and ongoing threat of fraud and identity theft to which Plaintiff is now exposed to; ascertainable out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time allocated to fixing or mitigating the effects of this Data Breach; overpayments of ILS's products and/or services which Plaintiff purchased; and the continued and increased risk to their PII and PHI which remains in the hands of unauthorized third parties and available for them to abuse, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual who had her PII and/or PHI compromised in the Data Breach. Independent Living Systems, LLC (ILS) offers a range of services including clinical and third-party administrative services to managed care organizations, home and community-based programs, and other medical providers that serve patient populations in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Dual-Eligible Market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael E. Criden, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Phone: (305) 357-9000 Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com - and - Michael A. Hanzman, Esq. Mitchell E. Widom, Esq. BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 1450 Brickell Avenue, 23rd Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 374-7593 Email: mhanzman@bilzen.com mwidom@bilzen.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Phone: (917) 438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com JBS USA: Edwards Sues for Discrimination ---------------------------------------- ROBERT EDWARDS, CURTIS J. BUTTS, JR., HERBERT L. ROBINSON, HERBERT ROBINSON JR., KRISTINA JOHNSON, KAREEM BROWN, TIMOTHY MYERS, JR., TROY JONES, GREGORY MEGGINSON, JAMES SKINNER, TRACEY PLUMMER, JAMES ROBINSON, KAALIYM MUHAMMAD, and individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JBS USA Holdings, Inc., and JBS Souderton, Inc., a division of JBS Regional Beef: Adrian Ramos (& Predecessors), General Manager(s) Stephanie Vega, (& Predecessors) HR Director(s) Oumou "Ami" Thiam, (& Predecessors) QA Manager(s) Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01789-MSG (E.D. Pa., May 15, 2023) arises from the Defendants' conduct of actively discriminating Plaintiffs and other Black/African Americans in the workplace and in the hiring/rehiring process having no equal opportunity to employment. According to the complaint, as a matter of practice and custom JBS Corporate, JBS Regional Beef and specifically, JBS Souderton Inc. has failed to hire, rehire, promote and/or otherwise encourage the employment of Black/African American in an effort to circumvent the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin with the hiring and promotion of Black Immigrants, and other ethnic minority groups. The Defendants denied Plaintiffs the opportunity to be rehired or to finish their careers with JBS, denying them salaries/wages, bonuses and employer's medical plan as awarded to similarly situated returning employees, says the complaint. The Defendants' employment denial was intentional discrimination based on Plaintiffs' race; created injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. Further, the Defendants use recruitment and hiring methods that perpetuated its largely Hispanic, Haitian, and African workforce has a disparate impact on the Black/African American employees, alleges the complaint. JBS USA Holdings, Inc. is an American food processing company and an independent subsidiary of the multinational company JBS S.A.[BN] Plaintiff Robert Edwards, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, appears pro se. JM SMUCKER CO: Mullins Sues Over Misleading Ads of Peanut Butter ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES C. MULLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01004 (N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, breach of warranties, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment, and for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act for its unfair and deceptive acts or practices. Plaintiff Mullins seeks redress for Defendant's business practices designed to mislead the public in connection with Defendant's promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling, distribution, and/or sale of Jif peanut butter products which Defendant promoted as containing ingredients safe for human consumption and being safe for use, when, in fact, they cause bacterial infections, gastrointestinal illnesses and other illnesses resulting from Salmonella contamination. J.M. Smucker Co. is incorporated in Ohio and has its company headquarters in Orrville, OH. Its peanut butter products are sold and purchased throughout the US. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq. DANN LAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com jeff@attorneyzim.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Fatnani Sues Over Unregistered Sale of Securities ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMIT FATNANI individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., EVOLVE BANK AND TRUST, INTERTRUST GROUP BV, PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., KEYCORP, and COLUMBIA BANKING SYSTEM, INC. AS SUCCESSOR TO UMPQUA HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00712-SI (D. Or., May 15, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged engagement in unregistered sale of securities or the operation of a Ponzi Scheme in violation of the Oregon Securities Law. In 2022, a Portland man named Sam Ikkurty and his business partner were charged by the federal government with organizing a $44 million Ponzi Scheme that defrauded at least $18 million from 170 individuals through the unlawful sales of securities. Plaintiff Amit Fatnani, an individual who lost $350,000, files this class action to hold six separate banks and financial companies accountable for their roles in the Ponzi Scheme. According to the complaint, due to governmentally mandated initial and ongoing due diligence obligations for banks, each Defendant further had detected, or disregarded with recklessness or gross negligence, that (a) Ikkurty's company, Jafia Group, was selling unregistered securities to investors, (b) agents of Jafia Group entities, including Ikkurty and his business partner Ravishankar Avadhanam, were not licensed to solicit and sell securities, and/or (c) the Jafia Group and its agents were selling securities to investors by making untrue statements of material facts and by omitting material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Under ORS 59.115(2)(a), upon tender of the securities, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the consideration paid for the securities, plus interest from the date of payment equal to the greater of the rate of interest provided in the security or 9%, less any amounts Plaintiff and the Class received on the securities, says the suit. The Defendants are financial services companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Fuller, Esq. OLSENDAINES US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 222-2000 E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com KPG NORTHEAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clement Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- TITILOYE CLEMENT; ANASTACIA RIVERA; CARMEN RAMOS; DIMARY CRUZ; and ANA CERVANTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KPG NORTHEAST LLC d/b/a FOURPOINTS by SHERATON; KPG HOTEL MANAGEMENT LLC; and DELAWARE HOTEL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 230501850 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., May 17, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid wages, unpaid predictability pay, damages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as housekeepers. KPG NORTHEAST LLC owns and operates hotels and motels. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAM & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 Facsimile: (215) 567-2310 Email: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Kysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 Email: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS, P.C. 705 8th St SE #100 Washington DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com KROGER LIMITED: Austin Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DONALD AUSTIN, DEBORAH WINSTON, SHARON SIMPSON and LORI DALTON, individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I MID ATLANTIC MARKETING AREA, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00048, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May 15, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00287-JPH-SKB to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Defendant Kroger for failing to pay its employees legally required wages and overtime premiums in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Law, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, the Virginia Minimum Wages Act, the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the West Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Standards for Employees Act. Kroger Limited Partnership owns and operates a chain of Kroger retail grocery stores in Virginia and West Virginia, among other states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martha Elizabeth Guarnieri, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1727 Snyder Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19145 Telephone: (215) 422-3478 Facsimile: (844) 300-1952 E-mail: mguamieri@hfajustice.com - and - Matthew Keith Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 200 Massachusetts Avenue NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-2433 Facsimile: (844) 300-1952 E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com - and - Rachel Emily Nadas HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1201 Connecticut Avenue NW, Ste 200K Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 899-2991 E-mail: rnadas@hfajustice.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark A. Knueve, Esq. Robert A. Harris, Esq. VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP PO Box 1008 52 E Gay Street Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Telephone: (614) 464-6400 E-mail: maknueve@vorys.com raharris@vorys.com - and - Peter Christopher Nanov, Esq. VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP 1909 K Street NW, Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 467-8831 Facsimile: (202) 533-9041 E-mail: pcnanov@vorys.com LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NC ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated Bouffard and Anderson class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions. On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations. On August 16, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. On August 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On February 13, 2023, the court entered an order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On February 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal the court’s order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On April 5, 2023, the Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ Petition. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary laboratories. LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Davis Class Suit in Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America of America Holdings disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Davis class suit in the Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court’s ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On October 16, 2019, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit Court’s dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the lawsuit. The court held oral arguments on December 9, 2020. On May 26, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion approving the result of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal in favor of the Plaintiff. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary laboratories. LAMOILLE HEALTH: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Marshall Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lamoille Health Partners, Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated April 13, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Patricia Marshall, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LAMOILLE HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00166-wks, in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 19, 2022, the suit arises from the recent targeted cyberattack against the Defendant that allowed a third party to access Defendant LHP's computer systems and data, resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive personal information belonging to thousands of current and former patients of LHP (the "Data Breach"). Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and more than 59,381 1 other victims suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the imminent risk of future harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information. Information compromised in the Data Breach includes names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, patient identification numbers, account numbers, financial information, health insurance information, medical information, and other protected health information ("PHI") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), and additional personally identifiable information ("PII") that Defendant collected and maintained (collectively the "Private Information"). On February 2, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and incorporated a memorandum of law, which the Court denied on April 13, 2023 through an Order signed by Judge William K. Sessions III. The appellate case is captioned as Patricia Marshall v. Lamoille Health Partners, Inc., Case No. 23-800, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 12, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Appellant Lamoille Health Partners, Inc. is represented by: John Charles Cleary, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 413-2837 Plaintiff-Appellee Patricia Marshall, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew B. Byrne, Esq. GRAVEL & SHEA PC 76 St. Paul Street P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402 MANPOWER US: Flores Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------ JESSE FLORES, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. MANPOWER US INC., MANPOWERGROUP US INC., ZARA USA, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23GDCV01005 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of Operations Associate on December 17, 2022 until February 16, 2023. Manpower US Inc. is a multi-national staffing agency for permanent and temporary recruitment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Melissa Robinson, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com melissa@hbklawyers.com MARKWEST ENERGY: Hamilton FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BRIAN ISON and CHRIS HAMILTON, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARKWEST ENERGY PARTNERS, LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00333, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 15, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00782-NR to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from MarkWest Energy Partners under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Ohio Rev. Code. MarkWest Energy Partners, LP is engaged in the gathering, processing, and transportation of natural gas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. James S. Nelson, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO Suite P-1200 405 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com jamesnelsonwv@aol.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. Taylor Ashley Jones, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian M. Hentosz, Esq. Christopher Michalski, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 625 Liberty Avenue, 26th Floor EQT Plaza Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 201-7676 Facsimile: (412) 456-2377 E-mail: bhentosz@littler.com cmichalski@littler.com - and - Kameron Miller, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 707 Virginia Street East, Suite 1010 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 599-4600 Facsimile: (304) 881-0871 E-mail: Kmiller@littler.com MDL 2913: Fabius-Pompey Central Sues Over E-Cig. Promotion to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------- FABIUS-POMPEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02353 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco products, worked together to implement their shared goal of growing a youth market in the image of the combustible cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to: (1) create an highly addictive product that users would not associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the lucrative youth market, (2) deceive the public into thinking the product was a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users through targeted marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools, including false and deceptive statements to the public and regulators, to delay regulation of e-cigarettes. By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State of New York, have redirected significant resources to combat Defendants' alleged deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its students on the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products and to prevent the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette products on Plaintiffs' property. The Fabius-Pompey Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Fabius-Pompey Central School District is a public school district organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of New York with its geographic boundaries located in Onondaga County. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com MDL 2966: $3.4-Mil. Class Deal With Amneal & Lupin Wins Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE XYREM (SODIUM OXYBATE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 20-md-02966-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: a. grants the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of two classes; b. denies the Defendants' motion to exclude portions of the Plaintiffs' expert testimony; and c. grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement with two of the Defendant corporations. The Plaintiffs, a mix of insurers and individual consumers, aver violations of federal and state antitrust laws by the Defendants, a group of pharmaceutical manufacturers, surrounding the alleged delay of a generic version of Xyrem, a narcolepsy drug. The current phase of litigation involves seven claims for relief. Claims 7 to 11 of the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") each aver conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade under state law; Claim 12 avers monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law; and Claim 17 seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2. For Claims 7 to 12, the Plaintiffs (except Ruth Hollman) seek certification of the following class under Rule 23(b)(3) ("the Damages Class"): All entities in the Class States that, for consumption by their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, and other than for resale, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all the purchase price for Xyrem and/or Xywav during the time from Jan. 17, 2017, through and until the date of class certification. The Class is composed of insurers, i.e., third-party payors ("TPPs"), rather than individual consumers. For Claim 17, the Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class under Rule 23(b)(2) ("the Injunctive Relief Class"): All individuals and entities in the United States that, for consumption by themselves, their families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, and other than for resale, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all the purchase price for Xyrem and/or Xywav during the time from Jan. 17, 2017, through and until the date of class certification. Both Classes also exclude certain entities and individuals, including the Defendants, federal and state governmental entities, and certain other insurers. The Plaintiffs also seek appointment as class representatives and for the appointment of Class Counsel under Rule 23. In support of class certification, the Plaintiffs offer expert reports from Dr. Rena Conti and Laura Craft. Dr. Conti's opening report primarily focuses on projecting a "generic conversion rate" for Xyrem -- that is, the rate at which generic Xyrem would have supplanted brand Xyrem once generic competition began. From this, Dr. Conti calculates damages stemming from the alleged delayed entry of generic Xyrem, using the narcolepsy drug Provigil as a "yardstick" to estimate what would have happened absent the alleged anticompetitive conduct. Craft's opening report, meanwhile, discusses the various data sources available to analyze Xyrem sales and prescriptions. For his part, the Defendants' expert, Dr. James Hughes, critiques Dr. Conti's methodology and conclusions, and in general suggests that various unique features of Xyrem indicate there are potentially many uninjured class members. The reply reports from Dr. Conti and Craft respond to Dr. Hughes's critiques and, in turn, provide their own critiques of his analysis. The Defendants have moved to exclude certain portions of Dr. Conti's and Craft's testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. On March 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs, along with Defendants Amneal and Lupin, filed a motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. The settlement agreement generally releases all claims against Amneal and Lupin, in exchange for a settlement fund in the amount of $3.4 million to be used to support continued litigation against the remaining Defendants (namely, Jazz and Hikma). The Settlement Class definition largely overlaps with the Damages Class definition, though it contains both individual consumers and TPPs. First, the Defendants do not contest that both proposed classes meet the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, and typicality. Instead, their opposition focuses on a few select areas. With respect to the Damages Class, they argue the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority requirements are not met because of the existence of uninjured class members. They further contend that the Class' claims relating to Xywav prescriptions must be dropped, along with claims from several of the Class States. For the Injunctive Relief Class, Defendants argue that (1) there are no adequate representatives for the Class among the Class Plaintiffs; (2) the Plaintiffs have insufficiently described the injunctive relief they seek; and (3) the Class cannot be certified because the Class Plaintiffs are primarily seeking monetary relief in this case. With respect to both Classes, the Defendants argue the Plaintiffs have impermissibly expanded the class definitions beyond what was included in the CAC. Judge Seeborg finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. Among other things he says (i) the Plaintiffs have shown that issues common to the Damages Class predominate over any issues affecting individual class members; (ii) given the number of claims and class members and the complexity of the common questions, the Plaintiffs have more than satisfied their burden to show why the class device is superior with respect to the Damages Class; (iii) individualized inquiries regarding Xywav prescriptions would not only arise but would necessarily predominate over common questions; (iv) the alleged overcharge would still have occurred and that is all that need be shown on a classwide basis; and the Class Plaintiffs themselves clearly have Article III standing: they have demonstrated injury at least in the states in which they paid for Xyrem prescriptions; and (v) Xywav purchases will be excluded for the same reasons articulated with respect to the Damages Class. Next, regarding the Defendants' Daubert Motion, it seeks to exclude certain portions of the Plaintiffs' expert testimony: (1) Dr. Conti's opinions related to the generic conversion rate for Xyrem in the but-for world and the use of Provigil as a yardstick drug; (2) Dr. Conti's opinions on "the application and impact of couponing in the but-for world;" (3) both experts' opinions on the rate of DAW prescriptions; and (4) both experts' opinions on the veracity of a particular survey cited by Dr. Hughes. While these arguments are not without merit, Judge Seeborg finds that they each at their core go to the weight of the experts' testimony, rather than its admissibility. He says (i) Dr. Conti's report provides not only adequate but ample reasons for selecting Provigil; (ii) Dr. Conti's statements in her opening report and her reply report are entirely consistent; (iii) while neither expert has suggested they have significant background or training in prescription form design, their experience in the medical and pharmaceutical field generally is sufficient to support their opinions about the Xyrem forms; and (iv) the Defendants' critiques go solely to the weight of the experts' testimony, and the Defendants are free to bolster the survey's credibility in their own case or to attack the Plaintiffs' expert testimony on cross-examination. Finally, Judge Seeborg turns to the motion for preliminary approval. The Plaintiffs have negotiated a settlement agreement with Defendants Amneal and Lupin. The agreement establishes a $3.4 million settlement fund, with Amneal contributing $1.9 million and Lupin contributing the remaining $1.5 million. Instead of distributing the fund to the Settlement Class members, the fund is to be used to support continued litigation against the remaining Defendants. In turn, the agreement releases all claims against Amneal and Lupin in connection with this action. After reviewing the agreement and the motion, Judge Seeborg holds that the Settlement Class meets the Rule 23(e) requirements and the Northern District's procedural guidance for class action settlements. It appears to be the product of arm's length, non-collusive, negotiated resolution and the Plaintiffs' counsel has more than enough experience to determine that such a settlement is advisable and beneficial for the class members in the context of the overall case. As such, the motion for preliminary approval is granted. Further steps toward finalization of the settlement, including distributing class notice, are detailed in the Order. In view of his analysis, Judge Seeborg grants the motion for class certification is granted, except insofar as the Classes attempt to include Xywav prescriptions. The following Damages Class is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3): All entities in Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin that, for consumption by their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, and other than for resale, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all the purchase price for Xyrem during the time from Jan. 17, 2017, through and until May 12, 2023. The Class Plaintiffs (with the exception of Class Plaintiff Blue Shield Blue Cross Association ("BCBSA"), which has been dismissed, and Ruth Hollman, who is not a member of the Class) are appointed as the Damages Class representatives. The following Injunctive Relief Class is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2): All individuals and entities in the United States that, for consumption by themselves, their families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, and other than for resale, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all the purchase price for Xyrem during the time from Jan. 17, 2017, through and until May 12, 2023. The Class Plaintiffs (with the exception of BCBSA) are appointed as the Injunctive Class representatives. Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Co-lead Counsel and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, as listed in the motion for class certification, are appointed as the Class Counsel for both certified Classes. Judge Seeborg denies the Defendants' motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert opinion testimony. He grants the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement as to the Settlement Class, under the definition stated in the motion. Claims against Amneal and Lupin are stayed pending final approval of the settlement. Citibank is appointed as the Escrow Agent for the settlement; the Class Plaintiffs (with the exception of BCBSA, which has been dismissed) are appointed as the Settlement Class representatives; and Girard Sharp LLP and Motley Rice LLC are appointed as the Class Counsel. Within 21 days of the entry of the Order, the Plaintiffs will file a motion for approval of a notice plan regarding the two certified Classes as well as the Settlement Class. A separate order will be entered regarding the related administrative motions to file under seal. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/c700b from Leagle.com. MDL 2966: BSBCA Tossed From Xyrem Antitrust Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE XYREM (SODIUM OXYBATE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 20-md-02966-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff Blue Shield Blue Cross Association without prejudice. The Defendants move to dismiss Blue Shield Blue Cross Association ("BCBSA") under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that BCBSA lacks standing. They argue that BCBSA cannot demonstrate injury in fact because the funds it uses to purchase prescription drugs on behalf of enrollees belong to the federal government; thus, it is the federal government, not BCBSA, that has allegedly been injured. The Plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation aver that the Defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct by delaying generic versions of Xyrem, a drug used to treat cataplexy and daytime sleepiness in patients with narcolepsy, from entering the market. The Defendants are all pharmaceutical manufacturers; the Plaintiffs include eight health benefits plans, including BCBSA, and one individual purchaser. BCBSA is a national association of 35 independent and locally operated Blue Cross Blue Shield ("BCBS") companies providing health plans to over 100 million members across the country. Since 1960, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") has contracted with BCBSA as the carrier for the Federal Employee Program ("FEP"), the largest of the comprehensive health insurance plans available to federal employees and established under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 ("FEHBA"), 5 U.S.C. Section 8902 et seq. Like other employer-sponsored health care plans, the federal government (as the employer) pays "about 75% of the premiums; the enrollee pays the rest. As a carrier, BCBSA's role is to administer the FEP on OPM's behalf. While the 35 independent BCBS companies (the "Local Blues") underwrite and administer FEP in their individual locales for most services, BCBSA itself manages pharmaceutical benefits for FEP enrollees; this includes, for example, purchasing Xyrem. It receives a fixed service charge in exchange for administering the FEP. Relevant to this motion is the way these prescription drug payments are made. First, the FEP premiums are deposited into a special fund (or letter of credit account) within the U.S. Treasury. BCBSA works with a pharmacy benefits manager ("PBM") that more directly manages the FEP's prescription drug benefits. Once the PBM does this on behalf of an enrollee (for instance, by buying a prescription drug), it sends an invoice to BCBSA. BCBSA, in turn, pays the invoice using a special FEP operating account; nearly simultaneously in most instances, BCBSA requests an aggregate drawdown from the Treasury account to reimburse BCBSA for these payments. If the FEP funds were ever to run short, BCBSA and the Local Blues, as the Plan's underwriters, would be obligated to fill the gap. OPM retains any funds left in the Treasury account at the end of a given year and determines what to do with them. Judge Seeborg notes that the first key question raised by the motion is this: who (or rather, what entity) is injured by the Defendants' alleged misconduct? He says it is the federal government -- specifically, OPM -- that is injured by any alleged overcharges of prescription drugs like Xyrem, and thus it is OPM that has Article III standing. Having established that OPM is injured, and BCBSA is not, the next question is whether BCBSA has been granted authority to bring suit on OPM's behalf. Judge Seeborg finds that the parties' course of conduct does suggest BCBSA has been granted such authority. Thus, BCBSA, acting as OPM's agent, has acted within the scope of its implied actual authority in suing. The trouble with this, however, is that BCBSA has expressly disavowed this position. Judge Seeborg says the proper course, then, is to grant the motion and dismiss BCBSA, without prejudice to BCBSA filing a complaint in a representative capacity for OPM, with OPM's ratification. The fact that the FEHBA carriers are not excluded under the class definitions is of no moment given the untenable legal position of seeking to represent the FEP itself. Judge Seeborg concludes that the Defendants' position is persuasive: BCBSA has not established that it has been injured, though it may be able to bring suit on behalf of the federal government. As such, the motion is granted, without prejudice to BCBSA filing a new complaint in a representative capacity for OPM. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/of7z7 from Leagle.com. MDL 2972: Opposition to Mamie Class Cert. Bid Due June 9 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes, et al., v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 15, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023 Certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023 Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023 motion seeking leave to submit rebuttal expert information with reply brief: -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023 to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023 Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023 Blackbaud rebuttal class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024 their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification: TBD and Daubert Motions: The Mamie Estes case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire; WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial Medical Center. The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities, healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health information. The common factual questions include: (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the practices met industry standards; (2) how the unauthorized access occurred; (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach; (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach; (5) the investigation into the breach; and (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud clients and affected consumers. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O8h32G at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Opposition to Mitchell Class Cert. Bid Due June 9 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00145 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023 Certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023 Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023 motion seeking leave to submit rebuttal expert information with reply brief: -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023 to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023 Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023 Blackbaud rebuttal class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024 their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification: TBD and Daubert Motions: The Mitchell case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire; WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial Medical Center. The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities, healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health information. The common factual questions include: (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the practices met industry standards; (2) how the unauthorized access occurred; (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach; (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach; (5) the investigation into the breach; and (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud clients and affected consumers. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/433efYX at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Opposition to Simkins Class Cert. Bid Due June 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Simkins, et al., v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00431 (D.S.C. Filed Feb. 10, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023 Certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023 Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023 motion seeking leave to submit rebuttal expert information with reply brief: -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023 to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023 Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023 Blackbaud rebuttal class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024 their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification: TBD and Daubert Motions: The Simkins case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire; WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Children's Museum; Lower East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial Medical Center. The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities, healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health information. The common factual questions include: (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the practices met industry standards; (2) how the unauthorized access occurred; (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach; (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach; (5) the investigation into the breach; and (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud clients and affected consumers. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/431LJXk at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Opposition to Zielinski Class Cert. Bid Due June 9 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zielinski v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04513 (D.S.C. Filed Dec. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023 Certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023 Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023 motion seeking leave to submit rebuttal expert information with reply brief: -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023 to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023 Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023 Blackbaud rebuttal class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024 their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification: TBD and Daubert Motions: The Zielinski case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire; WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Childrenss Museum; Lower East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial Medical Center. The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities, healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health information. The common factual questions include: (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the practices met industry standards; (2) how the unauthorized access occurred; (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach; (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach; (5) the investigation into the breach; and (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud clients and affected consumers. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MaIbv8 at no extra charge.[CC] MEDICAL SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Debarr Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES DEBARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL SERVICE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-01000-SL (N.D. Ohio., May 17, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Debarr was employed by the Defendants as a staff. MEDICAL SERVICE COMPANY supplies home medical equipment. The Hospital retails oxygen concentrator, walker rollators, aspirator, batteries, and related products. Medical Service serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E 9th St., Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com MORLEY COS: Class Settlement in Thomsen Suit Wins Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTINE THOMSEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. MORLEY COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10271 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Grant Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Service Awards. In this data-breach class action against Morley, the Plaintiffs alleged their personal information was stolen from the Defendant during a "massive ransomware-type malware attack" in 2021. After successful negotiations, the Parties reached a settlement that was preliminarily approved. The Agreement provided for payments to the members of the Settlement Class, release of claims, class-notice procedures, settlement administration, attorney's fees and costs, service awards, and dismissal of the case with prejudice. The following settlement class was certified: "all natural persons residing in the United States who were sent notice letters notifying them that their Private Information was compromised in the Data Incident announced by Defendant on or about Aug. 1, 2021." A final-approval hearing was held on April 19, 2023. There were only three objections to the Settlement Agreement: (1) Objection filed by Kathryn Kennedy and Gary Vallad on Feb. 10, 2023, challenging the fairness and adequacy of the settlement agreement and notice program's use of QR codes. (2) Objection raised by Daniel Bennett on behalf of class member Ms. Marcia Bennett, which was submitted after the Feb. 15, 2023 deadline and noncompliant with the objection procedure listed in the Notice. (3) Correspondence submitted by Helen Brome to the Claims Administrator, objecting to the Settlement Agreement. Judge Ludington concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. He finds that the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice satisfy all the relevant factors and overrules the objections because they seek extrajudicial relief outside the purview of the case, were noncompliant with the objection procedure listed in the Notice and lacked merit. Thus, the reaction of absent class members weighs in favor of final approval. For those reasons, Judge Ludington grants final approval of the Settlement Class, the Settlement Agreement, and the payment of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of $1,419,000 and a service award of $1,500 to the Class Representatives. All such payments will be made pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Ludington enters a final judgment and dismisses the case with prejudice. The Settlement Agreement is incorporated into the final judgment in full and will have the full force of an Order of the Court. The Court will retain jurisdiction with respect to implementation and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement agreement. It is a final order, and the case is closed. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://rb.gy/q36wn from Leagle.com. NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Neims Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Patrick Joseph Neims, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Neovia Logistics Distribution, LP, Neovia Logistics Services, LLC, Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2224879 was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 21, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00716-PA-SHK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Neovia Logistics LP -- https://www.neovialogistics.com/ -- provides transit services.The Company offers warehouse management, finished products distribution, inventory optimization, supply chain technology consulting, and supply chain consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Tracie L Childs, Esq. Keenan P O'Connor, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (858) 652-3100 Fax: (858) 652-3101 Email: tracie.childs@ogletree.com keenan.oconnor@ogletree.com NEW HAMPSHIRE: Doe Allowed to File Amended Class Complaint v. DHHS ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, John Doe, et al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, Civil No. 18-cv-1039-LM (D.N.H.), Judge Landya B. McCafferty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire: a. denies the Plaintiffs' motion to hold the Commissioner's motion to dismiss in abeyance; b. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to file a Second Amended Complaint to remedy any possibility of mootness; and c. denies the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. Four individual plaintiffs bring the class action against the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. In the First Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint, the Plaintiffs' only remaining claim challenges the Commissioner's practice of boarding individuals experiencing mental health crises in hospital emergency departments without procedural due process, Count I. The Commissioner moves to dismiss Count I on the ground that it is moot in light of the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision in Doe v. Commissioner, 174 N.H. 239 (2021) (referred to as "Jane Doe"). In response, the Plaintiffs move to file a Second Amended Complaint to remedy any possibility of mootness. They also ask the Court to hold the Commissioner's motion to dismiss in abeyance until it decides their motion to amend. Count I alleges that the Commissioner's boarding practice violates the Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not provided due process while being detained in hospital emergency departments under an involuntary emergency admission ("IEA") certificate. The Plaintiffs bring this claim in the context of the IEA procedures under RSA 135-C:27-33. Under that statutory framework, an IEA-certified patient is entitled to a probable cause hearing within three days after admission to the mental health services system. In conjunction with the hearing, the patient is entitled to notice of certain rights, including the right to counsel and the right to apply for admission on a voluntary basis. In May 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The following class was certified: As to Counts I, II, and III, a class is certified of all persons who are currently being, have been, or will be involuntarily detained in a non-DRF hospital under RSA 135-C:27-33 without having been given a probable cause hearing by the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services of the State of New Hampshire within three days (not including Sundays and holidays) of the completion of an involuntary emergency admission certificate. After the class was certified, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their state law claims in Counts II and III. Therefore, as stated, the only remaining claim is Count I, which alleges that the Plaintiffs are not provided due process after IEA certification in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In December 2022, the Commissioner moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim as moot. The Commissioner argues that the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision in Jane Doe, 174 N.H. 239, and the Circuit Court's telephonic hearing procedures have provided the relief sought by the Plaintiffs in Count I, rendering the claim moot. In response, the Plaintiffs moved to amend to add an express challenge to the Circuit Court's telephonic hearings but assert that the proposed change is merely a clarification because the First Amended Complaint alleged a lack of meaningful process in addition to challenging the timeliness of the probable cause hearings. They also seek leave to add new parties and claims. They filed a separate motion to hold the Commissioner's motion to dismiss in abeyance until after the court decides the motion to amend. First, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to consider the motion to amend before the Commissioner's motion to dismiss, arguing that if the court permits their motion to amend, the mootness problem raised by the Commissioner is cured. The Commissioner argues that the Court cannot consider the Plaintiffs' motion to amend because their claim is moot, which deprives the court of jurisdiction. Thus, the Commissioner urges it to dismiss Count I as moot without considering the motion to amend. Judge McCafferty holds that there is no need to resolve the jurisdictional issue that the Commissioner raises because the Plaintiffs also ask to supplement the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). Next, the Plaintiffs move to amend the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to add H.M. and J.S. as plaintiffs, to add Judge King as a defendant, and to add to Count I challenges to the telephonic hearings that were implemented during the last year. They also move to add claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act with H.M and J.S. as plaintiffs and Judge King and the Commissioner defendants. The Commissioner objects to the motion to amend. In addition to seeking to amend under Rule 15(a)(2), they invoked Rule 15(d) for leave to supplement the First Amended Complaint. Judge McCafferty holds that the Plaintiffs have shown good cause to modify the scheduling order to consider their motion under Rule 15(d). He further holds that although supplementation may require additional discovery, the Commissioner has not shown that the time necessary will prejudice her defenses. Third, the Plaintiffs seek leave to supplement the First Amended Complaint to add allegations, parties, and claims arising from the telephonic hearing procedures. Judge McCafferty holds that (i) the Plaintiffs are granted leave to supplement the complaint to add H.M. and J.S. as plaintiffs in Count I and to add the allegations that address the new procedures related to the telephonic hearings; (ii) the proposed supplement to add Judge King as a defendant in Count I is allowed without prejudice to Judge King's ability to raise any appropriate defense; (iii) he denies the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement to add Counts II and III and the related Disability Subclass because he does not permit them to add the disability claims. Finally, in light of the Court's ruling on supplementation, Judge McCafferty holds that Count I is not moot. Therefore, he denies the Commissioner's motion to dismiss Count I. For the foregoing reasons, Judge McCafferty (i) denies the Plaintiffs' motion to hold in abeyance; (ii) grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement; and (iii) denies the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to supplement the First Amended Complaint to add H.M. and J.S. as plaintiffs, to add David King, Administrative Judge of the New Hampshire Circuit Court, as a defendant, and to add the proposed allegations to Count I. The Plaintiffs are not granted leave to supplement to add Counts II and III or the Disability Subclass. The Plaintiffs will file a Second Amended Complaint with the supplementation that is allowed but without the allegations related to the disability claims in Counts II and III. The Second Amended Complaint will also delete the individual plaintiffs' claims against the hospitals that have been voluntarily dismissed. It will be filed within five days of the date of the Order. Within 30 days after Judge King is served and has appeared in the case, the parties will submit a joint proposed scheduling order to address any dates and deadlines to be changed considering Judge McCafferty's Order. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/d402t from Leagle.com. NEW YORK HEALTH: Distribution of Notice to Homecare Workers Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS FRANCK, LI ZHEN FENG, YERALDIN REYES, CHARISMA BARBER, CASSONDRA FLOYD, and ELIZABETH GUERRERO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NEW YORK HEALTH CARE INC., MURRY ENGLARD, and GLEN PERSAUD, Case No. 1:21-cv-04955-GHW-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Authorizing the Plaintiffs to distribute notice to all persons who worked as home care workers at NYHC between June 4, 2015 and the date of final judgment in this matter; 2. Directing the Defendants to produce the full names, last-known addresses, email addresses, home and cell phone numbers, job position(s), languages spoken, present or last known place of employment, and dates of employment for all home care workers employed by NYHC from June 4, 2021, to the present; 3. Approving the Plaintiffs' proposed notice plan; and 4. Tolling the FLSA statute of limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs from September 21, 2021, until ten days after the expiration of the notice and opt-in period. New York health care provides nursing and assisted living services to patients in the greater New York City area. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43lIGtn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. Ethan D. Roman, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 BROADWAY, 7TH FLOOR New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com edr@wittelslaw.com NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Badu Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALUNE BADU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC. and NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, LLC., d/b/a NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02160-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 12, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendants' information networks, including without limitation names, dates of birth, address, and Social Security numbers. With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms they caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and, at least, 1,049,375 other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on March 30, 2023, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII which was being kept unprotected. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. NextGen Healthcare, Inc. is an American software and services company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Van Horn, Esq. BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C. 3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 261-7711 E-mail: cvanhom@bfvlaw.com - and - Molly Munson Cherala, Esq. Laura Van Note, Esq. Molly Munson, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com mmc@colevannote.com NISOURCE INC: Hardy Suit Moved to Northern District of Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA HARDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NISOURCE INC., Defendant, Cause No. 2:22-CV-322-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), Judge John E. Martin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, grants NiSource's Motion to Transfer and transfers the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. On Oct. 31, 2022, Hardy filed the putative class action seeking overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He alleges that NiSource is headquartered in Indiana and Hardy worked for it in Indiana. NiSource explains that it contracted with an affiliate of Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, LLC, and Cypress employed Hardy as a welding inspector assigned to NiSource's worksites. It argues that Hardy's employment agreements with Cyprus provide for arbitration in Tulsa, which is in the Northern District of Oklahoma, and thus that the case must be transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma. Hardy argues that the agreement containing the arbitration clause was formed with Cyprus, not NiSource, and since NiSource is not a party to it, NiSource cannot move to transfer the case based on the agreement's forum selection clause. The matter is before the Court on a Motion to Transfer filed by NiSource on Dec. 23, 2022. NiSource moves to transfer the case to the Northern District of Oklahoma to compel arbitration under what it characterizes as Hardy's binding arbitration agreement. On Jan. 27, 2023, Hardy filed a response and NiSource filed a reply on Feb. 10, 2023. The parties agree that there was an employment agreement between Hardy and Cyprus that includes a forum selection clause. Hardy argues that before the case can be transferred based on the agreement's forum selection clause, NiSource first must show that the agreement between Hardy and Cypress is enforceable at all, and that NiSource is in a position to enforce the agreement. NiSource argues that only the Northern District of Oklahoma has the authority to determine questions of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, since the Federal Arbitration Act requires that the agreement's forum selection clause determines where orders compelling arbitration can be entered. Hardy argues that if the agreement is not enforceable as to NiSource, the Court cannot transfer the matter to Oklahoma for a determination of whether arbitration must be compelled, and therefore must first determine whether the agreement is enforceable. NiSource argues that the Court lacks the authority to determine whether the agreement including the arbitration provision is enforceable because of the venue provision. Indeed, the Court may not address whether arbitration may be compelled, including the enforceability of the arbitration provisions of an arbitration agreement. The only question, then, is whether there is an agreement. Judge Martin holds that the determination of whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable and arbitration should be compelled must come from the Northern District of Oklahoma. To the extent that discovery is needed to determine the extent to which the NiSource can enforce the arbitration agreement at issue, it can occur in Oklahoma. As in Gundrum v. Cleveland Integrity Servs., Inc., No. 16-CV-369-WMC, 2017 WL 414491, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 31, 2017), Judge Martin opines that the Plaintiff does not identify any other public interest factor that even arguably weighs strongly, if at all, in favor of trying his case in this district. Having failed to establish that the forum selection clauses in their arbitration agreements with defendant are invalid, or to demonstrate that there are any 'exceptional factors' weighing against transfer, the Defendant's motion to transfer to the Northern District of Oklahoma is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the case to the Northern District of Oklahoma. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://rb.gy/0jjwr from Leagle.com. NOVO NORDISK: Bid to Enter Judgment in Insulin Pricing Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE DIRECT PURCHASER INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 20-3426 (ZNQ) (RLS) (D.N.J.), Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Motion for Entry of Judgment, or in the alternative, Certification of Appeal filed by the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. The matter comes before the Court for the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, Certification of Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 1292(b). The Plaintiffs filed a brief in support of their Motion. All the Defendants opposed, and the Plaintiffs replied. Judge Quraishi has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the Motions without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. The Plaintiff brought this case as a class action alleging that the pricing and marketing practices of the PBM and the Manufacturer Defendants regarding insulin products violated: (1) Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 13(c), (2) Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and (3) the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Practices, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) & (d). The PBM and the Manufacturer Defendants each moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On July 9, 2021, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' commercial bribery claim under the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 13(c) ("RPA") solely on antitrust standing grounds. It also dismissed the Sherman Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 1, claim on the grounds that the Complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to infer a conspiracy from the Defendant's parallel pricing. The Court permitted the RICO claim to proceed. The Plaintiffs seek in this application certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) of the portion of the Court's order dismissing their RPA claim. Judge Quraishi notes that the Amended Complaint concerns the marketing, pricing, sale, and distribution of long-acting analog insulin drugs for the treatment and management of diabetes. The alleged bribery and kickback scheme is detailed in paragraphs 88 to 119 of the Amended Complaint. These allegations, he says, are fully incorporated into both the RPA and RICO causes of action in Counts One, Four, and Five. Further, the Plaintiffs claim the alleged bribes and kickbacks led to their injuries in Counts One, Four and Five. Additionally, the damages they seek to recover are identical: the Plaintiffs' alleged overpayment due to the existence of the bribery and kickback scheme. The Plaintiffs' RPA and RICO causes of action, therefore, rely on the same factual circumstances. Alternative theories of recovery based on the same factual situation is insufficient for Rule 54(b). Accordingly, Judge Quraishi opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to overcome the burden to demonstrate a final judgment under Rule 54(b). The Plaintiffs alternatively seek to certify the order dismissing their RPA cause of action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Judge Quraishi holds that the July 8, 2021 Order involves a controlling question of law and the fact that the Plaintiffs disagree with the Court's application of the facts in the record to the well-settled legal standard is insufficient to find substantial ground for difference of opinion. Je further holds that the Plaintiffs' RICO and RPA causes of action rely on the same alleged kickback and bribery scheme. An interlocutory appeal of the Court's July 8, 2021 Order will therefore not eliminate issues to make discovery easier and less costly because the discovery in both counts is related to the same kickback and bribery scheme. For these reason, the Plaintiffs' Motion is denied. An appropriate Order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion is available at https://rb.gy/2ivms from Leagle.com. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Dismissal of Camelot Event Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Global disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the plaintiffs appealed the New York Supreme Court, County of New York's Camelot Event Driven Fund dismissal ruling. In August 2021, Camelot Event Driven Fund filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, and in November 2021, an amended complaint was filed that, among other changes, added an additional named plaintiff (as used in this paragraph, the "Complaint"). The Complaint is purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the Company's Class B Common Stock and 5.75% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock pursuant to public securities offerings completed in March 2021, and was filed against the Company, certain senior executives, members of our Board of Directors, and the underwriters involved in the offerings. The Complaint asserts violations of federal securities law and alleges that the offering documents contained material misstatements and omissions, including through an alleged failure to adequately disclose certain total return swap transactions involving Archegos Capital Management referenced to our securities and related alleged risks to the Company's stock price. In December 2021, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation seeking the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the outside director defendants from the lawsuit, which the Court subsequently ordered. On the same date, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which were heard in January 2023. On February 7, 2023, the Court dismissed all claims against the Company while allowing the claims against the underwriters to proceed. The plaintiffs and underwriter defendants have appealed the ruling. Paramount Global -- https://www.paramount.com/ -- is one of the world's leading producers of premium entertainment content that connects billions of people in nearly every country in the world.[BN] PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Sherman Act Class Suit Settlement for Court Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Global disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the settlement in the Sherman Act-related class suit is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In September 2019, the Company was added as a defendant in a multi-district putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit was filed by parties that claim to have purchased broadcast television spot advertising beginning about January 2014 on television stations owned by one or more of the defendant television station owners and alleges the sharing of allegedly competitively sensitive information among such television stations in alleged violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The action, which names the Company among fourteen total defendants, seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest as well as injunctions against the allegedly unlawful conduct. In October 2019, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the matter, which was denied by the Court in November 2020. The Company have reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit. The settlement, which will include no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company, will be subject to Court approval. Paramount Global -- https://www.paramount.com/ -- is one of the world's leading producers of premium entertainment content that connects billions of people in nearly every country in the world.[BN] PREFERRED FAMILY: Gordon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- TARA GORDON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREFERRED FAMILY HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00027 (E.D. Mo., May 18, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Gordon was employed by Defendant at its Kirksville, Missouri location as a community support specialist from approximately June 2013, until her employment was terminated on or about September 1, 2020. During this timeframe, Plaintiff worked as a community support specialist and did not manage any employees. The Plaintiff's job was to engage in a required number of client encounters per day and complete the associated documentation related to each encounter. The Defendant's policies required employees to meet a certain number of encounters and complete all related documentation no matter how many hours it took. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other community support specialists with proper overtime wages for their hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week, says the suit. Preferred Family Healthcare Inc. is incorporated in the State of Missouri, registered to do business with the Missouri Secretary of State and is authorized to do business in the State of Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Wunderlich, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM 5821 Northwest 72nd Street Kansas City, MO 64151 Telephone: (816) 581-4040 Facsimile: (816) 741-8889 E-mail: j.wunderlich@cornerstonefirm.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Fails to Warn on Detergent Pacs' Risks, Izzo Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH IZZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02125-BHH (D.S.C., May 18, 2023), arises out of the Defendant's failure to warn consumers about the explosion and spewing risk of its dishwasher detergent pacs (including, but not limited to, Cascade Platinum Action Pacs). The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages because the said products are adulterated, defective, worthless, and unfit for human use due to the risk of explosion. This explosion releases harmful chemicals into the air and onto the surrounding surfaces which greatly increases the risk of contact with skin and/or eyes. The Plaintiff suffered personal injury damages due to Defendant's misconduct and he seeks relief and restitution for personal injury damages incurred as a result of usage of the products he purchased from Defendant. Among other things, the Plaintiff also alleges claims for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and fraudulent concealment. The Procter & Gamble Company is multinational company that has been incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio since 1905. Defendant's corporate headquarters are located at 1 Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45202. P&G manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells many types of cleaning products, including the Cascade products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Doolittle, Esq, Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com QUEBEC MAJOR: Faces $15M Class Suit Over Alleged Hazing Abuse ------------------------------------------------------------- Sidhartha Banerjee of The Canadian Press reports that a former player with the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League has filed an application for a class-action lawsuit of more than $15 million against the league and its teams over alleged hazing abuse. Carl Latulippe played in Quebec's main junior league between 1994 and 1996 and claims he was abused during hazing rituals with two teams. Latulippe, 45, says that during training camp he was forced by veteran players of the Chicoutimi Sagueneens to undress and masturbate in front of teammates on a team bus, with full knowledge of the coaches. He also alleges that team veterans assaulted rookies with soap wrapped in towels. The plaintiff's accusations were made public last month in an article in Montreal's La Presse, at which time the league said it had already opened investigations into sexual and physical abuse among its franchises. Latulippe was Chicoutimi's first-round pick in the 1994 QMJHL draft. He was 16. After the masturbation incident on the bus, he left the team without saying why, but the head coach convinced him to return. Latulippe said he discussed the behaviour of veteran players with his coach, who allegedly replied that the hazing would only last a year and that it helped to build character. Latulippe played six regular season games with the Sagueneens. Quebec junior hockey league investigating 1990s sexual hazing allegations His application for a class action says he was later traded to the Drummondville Voltigeurs and was also abused by members of that team during hazing rituals. Latulippe alleges that Voltigeurs rookies were required to cover themselves in shampoo to make it difficult for veterans to grab and assault them in the shower. One Voltigeurs veteran allegedly tore the anus of a rookie by shoving a hanger inside him. Latulippe also describes being forced to binge drink at a team initiation event in Drummondville, Que. After the Voltigeurs, the plaintiff played for the Beauport Harfangs -- who have since become the Quebec City Remparts. He said no abusive hazing incidents occurred while he was on that team. Suit would cover 1969 to present The class action seeks to represent "all hockey players who have experienced abuse while they were minors and playing in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, starting from July 1, 1969." Latulippe says he suffered from several psychological consequences as a result of the alleged abuse. He says he became addicted to drugs and gambling, which prevented him from maintaining his income. As well, he says he hasn't been able to set foot in an arena since his time in the Quebec major juniors and refuses to allow his son to play hockey out of fear the child would suffer similar abuse. The request to launch the class action dated May 23, 2023 was filed at the Quebec City courthouse, and a Superior Court judge must authorize the case before it can proceed. Latulippe's application targets the Quebec league, its member franchises and its umbrella organization -- the Canadian Hockey League -- and seeks $650,000 for the plaintiff in damages, including pain, suffering and humiliation, as well as lost productivity and therapy. Another $15 million is to be shared among other alleged victims. The proposed lawsuit notes that both the CHL and QMJHL have codes of conduct in which teams have the obligation to supervise players. A bylaw for Quebec's league states that players must evolve "in a safe and formative environment to prepare them for their life as an adult." Latulippe's lawsuit says that the defendants, "when they had an obligation to protect the members of the class and to look after their well-being, witnessed the abuse, encouraged it, neglected, tolerated, covered up or ignored it." He filed his application after the Ontario Superior Court in February denied authorization for a class action in that province involving players in Canada's three major junior hockey leagues -- including the QMJHL -- dating back to 1975. Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell accepted evidence that former players suffered "horrific and despicable and unquestionably criminal acts" at the hands of teammates and staff during initiations. But the judge said the plaintiffs failed to present a workable plan to litigate. The plaintiffs can still appeal that decision or launch individual lawsuits against the leagues and teams. The Quebec filing excludes anyone who participates in any individual lawsuits in Ontario. In a statement issued May 24, 2023 evening, a spokesperson for the QMJHL said the league had launched an independent investigation into Latulippe's allegations. "The QMJHL takes allegations of maltreatment very seriously and condemns the conduct of any perpetrators or teams that have acted inappropriately and outside the expectations and standards of the QMJHL," wrote Maxime Blouin, the league's communications director. [GN] REALPAGE INC: Hollins Sues Over Wrongful Consumer Report -------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN HOLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC. d/b/a LEASINGDESK SCREENING, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02247-MLB-LTW (N.D. Ga., May 18, 2023) seeks to recover damages for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On or around February 13, 2023, Plaintiff received an email in response to her housing application indicating that she was being denied housing due the results of the consumer report provided by Defendant. Specifically, it stated that her application was unable to be approved due to "Rental history unsatisfactory". When Plaintiff review the report provided by Defendant, she was confused because the only rental history being reported pertained to her time at "Tara Bridge" apartments. The report included "Rental History" for the years 2006-2009. For 2006, Defendant reported four late payments and $400.00 in late fees. For 2007, Defendant reported two late payments and $200.00 in late fees. For 2008, Defendant reported nine late payments and $900.00 in late fees. For 2009, Defendant reported six late payments and $600.00 in late fees. The Plaintiff was upset and frustrated because to her understanding, adverse information such as late rental payments are not reported on a consumer report beyond seven years, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff Kathleen Hollins alleges that the LeasingDesk has negligently and recklessly disseminated consumer reports concerning her and countless others' backgrounds that wrongfully reported outdated adverse rental history beyond the time allotted under the FCRA. She seeks statutory and punitive damages, along with injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. RealPage, Inc. d/b/a LeasingDesk Screening is a consumer reporting agency that regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties in exchange for monetary compensation, by means of interstate commerce. It is a Delaware corporation that maintains a primary place of business at 2201 Lakeside Blvd, Richardson, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq. THE OAKS FIRM 3895 Brookgreen Pt. Decatur, GA 30034 Telephone: (404) 500-7861 E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com - and - Joseph Kanee, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1550 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 369-1122 Facsimile: (732 298-6256 RESIDENT HOME: Gutierrez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping ------------------------------------------------------- Nora Gutierrez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RESIDENT HOME LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation d/b/a NECTAR SLEEP; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09554 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation the California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") which prohibits both wiretapping and eavesdropping of electronic communications without the consent of all parties to the communication. The Defendant engages in wiretapping the conversations of visitors to their website nectarsleep.com, and permits third parties to eavesdrop on these conversations. The Defendant and these third parties then utilize the collected transcripts for financial gain in unregulated gray data markets. The Defendant allows a third-party chat company to collects, and sells information gathered from its website, including "Identifiers/Contact Information, Internet or other electronic network activity information, and inferences drawn from the above" to undisclosed parties in violation of the CIPA. The Defendant does not disclose to its users that their interactions, which users reasonably believe to be between themselves and Defendant, to be brokered into gray data markets. The Defendant has sold out the privacy and security of their customers, which is unethical and unlawful, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of California residing within the County of Angeles. Resident Home LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that owns, operates, and/or controls the website, nectarsleep.com, an online platform that offers five distinct bedding and mattress brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler (SBN 241964) TAULER SMITH, LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 510 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (310) 590-3927 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Court Dismisses Winter Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CIVIA WINTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00772 (ZNQ) (TJB) (D.N.J.), Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: a. dismisses Winter's Class Action Complaint without prejudice for lack of standing; and b. denies as moot Defendants Resurgent Capital Services L.P. and Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Winter's Complaint. At some point prior to Feb. 13, 2021, an obligation was incurred by Winter, a resident of Ocean County, New Jersey, owed to General Electric Capital Corp. Also prior to that date, the debt incurred by Winter was assigned, or sold, to Pinnacle, which contracted with Resurgent to collect the debt. As alleged, Pinnacle and Resurgent are in the business of collecting debts incurred for personal, family, or household purposes on behalf of creditors. Neither party disputes on this motion that the Defendants are "debt collectors" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. (the "FDCPA"). On Feb. 13, 2021, Resurgent, on behalf of Pinnacle, sent Winter a debt collection letter regarding the alleged debt currently owed to Pinnacle. The Letter was sent to Winter in response to a request from her regarding verification of the debt. Appended to the Letter was an account summary, providing current and historical account information relating to Winter's debt. The Letter also included a validation notice. The Plaintiff takes issue with the Letter itself, arguing that it is materially deceptive in several ways, including, inter alia, that: (1) the Letter failed to disclose that the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit to collect on the debt will recommence upon payment by her; (2) the account summary enclosed with the Letter fails to detail how the initial amount of the debt increased to the current balance due of $6,410.67; and (3) the validation notice in the Letter contains conflicting statements as to whether the validation of the Debt was completed. In connection with the alleged defects in the Letter, on Feb. 11, 2022, the Plaintiff commenced the instant class action against the Defendants, alleging, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, that she was harmed by the debt collection letter that was sent to her by the Defendants. The Complaint asserts three claims under the FDCPA, alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. In lieu of filing an answer, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on May 18, 2022. The Defendants argue that Winter fails to state a claim under the FDCPA because (1) the Letter is not a communication to collect a debt in violation of the FDCPA; (2) the Complaint does not allege that the Defendants made a false, deceptive or misleading statement about the debt or that they used unfair or unconscionable means to collect the debt when it contained the statute of limitations language in the Letter; (3) the Defendants were not required to detail how the initial debt amount increased to the current balance owed; and (4) the Defendants did not use contradictory language in the Letter. Before Judge Quraishi can address the merits of the Defendants' arguments, however, he must first determine whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. He finds that the Plaintiff does not allege an injury beyond statutory violations. The Supreme Court made clear in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2204-05 (2021), that this is not sufficient to confer standing. Accordingly, Judge Quraishi holds that Winter lacks standing to bring her claims under the FDCPA. He therefore dismisses the Complaint without prejudice. Winter is given an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to remedy her standing deficiency. For these reasons, the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot. The Court permits the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days to plead concrete injury consistent with TransUnion. An appropriate Order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Opinion is available at https://rb.gy/ivchj from Leagle.com. ROSC-EL INC: Mandel Sues Over Unlawful Landlord Practices --------------------------------------------------------- JENNY MANDEL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSC-EL, INC. d/b/a ZALE MANAGEMENT COMPANY and 2249 W. IOWA BUILDING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2017CH07047 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., May 18, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violation of the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. During 2016, the Plaintiff complained to Defendants about their failure to provide maintenance and upkeep to the premises, including failing to mow the lawn for over a month during the summer. The issues complained about were code violations as established by the City of Chicago. After Defendants failed and refused to correct the code violations, Plaintiff contacted Alderman Brian Hopkins of the 2nd Ward to complain about the code violations. After Plaintiff complained to the alderman about the foregoing code violations, Defendants initiated eviction proceedings against Plaintiff by serving her with a Landlord's Five Day’s Notice and then filing a complaint for possession against Plaintiff. Zale, is an Illinois company registered with the Illinois Secretary of State to conduct business in Illinois. On the Zale website, it states that Zale is a full service property management company that currently manages multiple properties consisting of 260 apartments and condominiums. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S Sobek, Esq. JS LAW 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone (312)756-1330 E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com SAFELITE GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Adams Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- COURTNEY ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01646-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, May 17, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. SAFELITE GROUP INC. repairs and replaces auto glass. The Company also provides window tinting, and installs windshield wipers and truck backslider windows for customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: (954) 400-4713 SIDWELL AIR: Madsen Files Bid for Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER MADSEN, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. SIDWELL AIR FREIGHT, INC, and DHL EXPRESS (USA) INC., d/b/a DHL EXPRESS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00008-BSJ (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the case as collective action, approving the proposed notice plan, and directing production of the collective list. The Plaintiff contends that in order to efficiently notify potential collective members, the Court should order the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff, within seven days of its order, an electronic list of all persons who fit within the proposed collective, including each collective member's: (1) name, (2) last known mailing address, (3) last known telephone number, (4) last known personal email address, (5) dates and location of employment, (6) date of birth, and (7) Social Security number (last four digits only). The case arises out of the Defendants' unlawful employment policies and practices. Those unlawful policies and practices include failing to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who deliver packages (Courier Drivers) in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). -- Courier Drivers are similarly situated in that they all: (1) are paid pursuant to the same flat rate compensation policy that violates the FLSA as a matter of law; (2) are subject to a similar reporting structure; (3) receive similar training; (4) perform similar job duties; and (5) routinely work over 40 hours in a workweek. This is precisely the type of case that should be conditionally certified under the FLSA. On January 26, 2023, the Plaintiff Heather Madsen filed this lawsuit against the Defendants on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees who failed to receive overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the FLSA on behalf of herself and a proposed FLSA Collective. Sidwell answered the Complaint on March 22, 2023, and DHL answered on March 27, 2023. The Plaintiff worked as a Courier Driver for Sidwell from June 2021 until December 2022, making deliveries on behalf of DHL, throughout Salt Lake County in Utah. Sidwell provides last-mile delivery services to DHL in Utah and other states, such as Texas, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, New Mexico, and Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43ps589 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Michael J. Anderson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net apiazza@bm.net manderson@bm.net - and - April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. Katie Panzer, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC 1881 South 1100 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Telephone: (801)415-9909 Facsimile: (801) 303-7324 E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com katie@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Johnson Seeks Conditional Status of Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01562-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): "All individuals classified as exempt from overtime who worked for or work for Siemens Industry, Inc. as a commissioned employee nationwide at any time from three years before the filing of this motion through resolution of this action. 2. approving that judicial notice be sent to all putative FLSA collective action members; 3. approving the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed judicial notice, consent form, and reminder notice; 4. authorizing a 90-day notice period for the putative plaintiffs to join the case; 5. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel the contact information for each putative FLSA collective action member who opts in within ten days in Excel format; and 6. tolling the statute of limitations while this motion is pending. The Plaintiff Johnson requests that this Court conditionally certify a collective of commissioned employees classified by Siemens as exempt from overtime. The Plaintiff filed this putative collective action lawsuit seeking substantial unpaid overtime compensation related to the Defendant’s failure to maintain a policy compensating its employees for overtime wages. Rather than maintaining such a policy, the Defendant wrongfully classified the Plaintiff and other members of the proposed nationwide collective as exempt in a scheme purposely designed by the Defendant to avoid paying misclassified employees all overtime wages owed to them. Siemens is a multinational corporation focused on developing technology for buildings and infrastructure, automation and industrial plant machinery, energy efficiency, and transportation and logistics. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BS9XI4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Shigufa K. Saleheen, Esq. Brielle D. Edborg, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Shigufa@lebelaw.com Brielle@lebelaw.com SIRIUS XM: Stevenson's False Ad Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- AYANA STEVENSON and DAVID AMBROSE, for themselves, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Defendant, Case No. C23-00855, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 15, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02367-TSH to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current and former SiriusXM subscribers in California who paid a U.S. Music Royalty Fee within the applicable statute of limitations. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Sirius XM has engaged in a deceptive pricing scheme whereby SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges by failing to include in its advertised prices the amount of its U.S. Music Royalty Fee. Sirius XM Radio Inc. is an American broadcasting corporation headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Diana L. Calla, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 E-mail: dcalla@jonesday.com - and - Lee A. Armstrong, Esq. Eric P. Stephens, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-3939 Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 E-mail: laarmstrong@jonesday.com epstephens@jonesday.com SMITHFIELD FRESH: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Franklin ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Franklin v. Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp., Case No. 4:23-cv-04054-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 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45j9hsS at no extra charge.[CC] STANLEY BLACK: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit in Conn. --------------------------------------------------------------- Stanley Black & Decker 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 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Rammohan class suit in the District of Connecticut. On March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Naresh Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00369-KAD, was filed in the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to consumer demand for the Company’s products amid changing COVID-19 trends and macroeconomic conditions. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action in all respects. Stanley Black is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools, power tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial customers, as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial customers.[BN] SVF MURAL SEATTLE: Amorine Sues Over Unlawful Rent Hikes -------------------------------------------------------- Adam Amorine, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. SVF MURAL SEATTLE, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; FIRST FIDUCIARY REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and AMERICAN REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 23-2-07038-1 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., April 18, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for damages stemming from Defendants' unlawful rent hikes. On January 28, 2022, Mr. Amorine entered into a 13-month residential lease agreement with SVF Mural. Under the lease, he was required to pay $1,558.00 per month for rent. Mr. Amorine's lease was set to expire on February 27, 2023. The lease provided that, upon termination, the agreement would automatically renew on a month-to-month basis unless Mr. Amorine gave SVF Mural 20-days' notice of his intent to terminate the lease. The lease further stated, "If we give you at least 180 days written notice of rent increases or at least 30 days written notice of non-rent lease changes, effective when the Lease term or renewal period ends, this Lease Contract will automatically continue month-to-month with the increased rent or lease changes." On January 17, 2023, Mr. Amorine received an email notice from SVF Mural reminding him that his lease would soon expire and providing him with options to continue living in the building when his lease ended. His first option was to renew his lease for a one-year term for $1,791 per month—over $230 (or about 14.9%) more per month than his rent under the original lease. His second option was to sign a one-month lease for $6,636, over four times his monthly rent under the original lease. The January 17, 2023 email included a letter dated November 15, 2022 containing the foregoing terms. However, Mr. Amorine never received a copy of that letter before January 17, 2023. Mr. Amorine alerted SVF Mural that the January 17, 2023 notice and Defendants' attempt to increase his rent did not comply with the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) because, among other reasons, it did not provide 180-days' notice before the rent hike went into effect. This would be true even if Defendants had provided notice on November 15, 2022, the date on the letter attached to the email. Despite Mr. Amorine's efforts to inform Defendants of their legal obligations, Defendants did not retract the January 17 notice or agree to amend the notice to comply with the law. Given the inconvenience, stress, and expense of finding a new residence on the one hand, and the financial burden of potentially quadrupling his rent obligation on the other, Mr. Amorine had little option but to renew his lease at the new, increased annual rate set forth in the January 17, 2023 notice. This rent increase went into effect February 27, 2023 less than 60 days after Defendants notified him of the rent increase, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a tenant living in apartment buildings owned and/or operated by Defendants in the City of Seattle. SVF Mural owns and/or operates the Mural Apartments located in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Berger, Esq. Carson D. Phillips-Spotts, Esq. SCHROETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER 401 Union Street, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 622-8000 Fax: (206) 682-2305 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: $7.25-Mil. Class Deal in Saucillo Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GILBERT SAUCILLO; JAMES R. RUDSELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. SADASHIV MARES, Objector-Appellant, and JOHN BURNELL; JACK POLLOCK, Plaintiffs v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC, an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED; DOES, Defendants, Case No. 22-55560 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's approval of a class action settlement between Defendant Swift and the Plaintiffs-Appellees. The district court approved a $7.25 million settlement, of which the class counsel would receive approximately $1.8 million in attorneys' fees. The Ninth Circuit previously vacated an order by the district court approving the same settlement agreement because the court applied the wrong legal standard, failing to engage the heightened fairness inquiry that is required when a settlement agreement is reached prior to class certification. On remand, the district court conducted the requisite "probing inquiry," scrutinizing the settlement agreement for any subtle signs that the class counsel allowed pursuit of their own self-interests to infect the negotiations. The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement agreement. In scrutinizing the agreement for subtle signs of collusion, it says the court appropriately considered the interaction between the agreement's clear sailing provision and the size of the attorneys' fees and determined that there was no cause for concern, given that the attorneys' fees were proportionate, and no portion of the settlement fund could revert to Swift. The remaining "red flags" that Mares raises do not otherwise indicate collusion. First, the fact that the Plaintiffs settled the case after the denial of class certification was not inherently suspect. Next, the fact that the settlement states that it settles claims in the Consolidated Complaint for violations of certain state statutes that were not named in previously operative complaints does not evince collusion or result in unfairness. Nor did the district court err in addressing Mares' concerns regarding Swift's exposure estimate or in approving that estimate. Finally, any uncertainty in the number of class members was minor and not indicative of collusion between the parties. Given the district court's exposure to the litigants and their strategies, positions and proof, the Ninth Circuit cannot say that the court abused its discretion in approving the settlement agreement. Rather, it scrutinized the settlement agreement for subtle signs of collusion and appropriately concluded that the settlement agreement was the product of non-collusive negotiations. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://rb.gy/71z8a from Leagle.com. TELEPHONE AND DATA: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Telephone and Data Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed against TDS and UScellular and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint alleges that certain public statements made between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the "potential class period") regarding UScellular's business strategies to address subscriber demand violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period and demands unspecified monetary damages. TDS is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of this action would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. TDS intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously on the merits. Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., is a diversified telecommunications company providing high-quality communications services to customers with approximately 5.1 million wireless connections and 1.2 million wireline and cable connections at December 31, 2017. TDS conducts all of its wireless operations through its majority-owned subsidiary, United States Cellular Corporation (U.S. Cellular). As of December 31, 2017, TDS owned 83% of the combined total of the outstanding Common Shares and Series A Common Shares of U.S. Cellular and controlled 96% of the combined voting power of both classes of U.S. Cellular common stock. TDS provides broadband, video, voice and hosted and managed services, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, TDS Telecommunications LLC (TDS Telecom). TDS was incorporated in 1968 and changed its state of incorporation from Iowa to Delaware in 1998. TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misrepresentation & Omissions -------------------------------------------------------------- Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2023, that on February 27, 2023, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk and certain current and former Company executives alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions about the company's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Computer (FSDC) technologies and seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between February 19, 2019, and February 17, 2023. On April 13, 2023, a putative Tesla shareholder filed a related shareholder derivative complaint against the members of Tesla's board of directors and certain current and former executives, alleging contribution for violations of the federal securities law, breach of fiduciary duties, waste, and unjust enrichment. The complaint asserts derivative claims and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Tesla, Inc. is an automotive company based in Texas. TESLA INC: Shareholders Hit Musk Tweet on Privatization Rumor ------------------------------------------------------------- Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2023, that between August 10, 2018, and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Mr. Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. On January 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and added as defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The parties stipulated to certification of a class of stockholders, which the court granted on November 25, 2020. The trial started on January 17, 2023, and on February 3, 2023, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. After the trial, plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial, which the defendants opposed. Tesla, Inc. is an automotive company based in Texas. TESLA INC: Software Updates Cut Battery Capacity, Bui-Ford Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID BUI-FORD, IGOR KRAVCHENKO, MICAH SIEGAL, and LUCAS BUTLER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02321 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2023) asserts claims on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a nationwide Class for Defendant's violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California's Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and trespass to chattel under California law. According to the complaint, in the Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles, Tesla recently has been implementing automatic software updates which, without warning to the customer, deplete the battery and reduce the driving range of the vehicles by at least 20%. These updates are implemented by Tesla via entry into the car's computer, and are done systemically without the need to bring the car into a dealership for a repair. In many cases, car owners will be compelled to pay a third party a significant fee to reverse the software update so that the car owners could continue to experience the battery performance they had before the update. In some other cases, the software updates will render the batteries inoperable, and car owners, including Plaintiffs, need to purchase a new battery at a cost of up to $15,000, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the Class and Sub-Classes for all relief to which they are entitled, including but not limited to compensation for out-of-pocket and incidental expenses, including compensation for Tesla owners who paid to replace their battery or to reverse the software updates, punitive damages, and an injunction compelling Tesla to stop unilaterally updating software or modifying the performance of their vehicles without their consent. Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben M. Harrington, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: benh@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com jerrodp@hbsslaw.com - and - Eric J. Harrison, Esq. ATTORNEY WEST SEATTLE 5400 California Ave. SW Suite E Seattle, WA 98136 Telephone: (206) 745-3738 E-mail: eric@attorneywestseattle.com TIMEC SERVICES: E.D. California Narrows Claims in Wilson Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARVONTE WILSON and DOMONIQUE DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIMEC SERVICES COMPANY, INC.; FERROVIAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.; VALERO REFINING COMPANY-CALIFORNIA; DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00172 WBS KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Marvonte Wilson and Domonique Daniels brought the putative class action in Solano County Superior Court against Timec Services Co., Inc.; Ferrovial Services Infrastructure, Inc.; Valero Refining Co.-California; and DISA Global Solutions. They allege employment discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Cal. Gov. Code Section 12940; race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981; employment discrimination based on perceived disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12112(a); and negligence under California law. Defendant DISA now moves to dismiss the complaint, joined in part by Defendants Timec, Valero, and Ferrovial. Defendants Timec, Ferrovial, and Valero are businesses in the refinery industry. At all relevant times, Ferrovial owned Timec. DISA is a drug-testing company providing services to hundreds of employers in the refining, chemical, and petrochemical industries, including defendants Timec/Ferrovial and Valero. It operates the DISA Contractor's Consortium ("DCC"), an online platform that provides information about whether employees are compliant with DISA's drug-testing policies. When an employee fails to comply with DISA's drug-testing policies, he or she is designated as "inactive" on DCC. To regain "active" status, employees must pay DISA to either take a retest or complete a substance abuse course. DISA uses a variety of drug-testing methods, including urine, blood, and hair testing. Hair tests cannot detect drug usage that occurred approximately five to seven days prior to the test but can detect earlier drug usage. DISA claims that hair testing can detect repeat drug use up to a 90-day window. Hair testing is less effective on melanin-rich, or darker, hair. As a result, samples of melanin-rich hair -- a feature black people commonly have -- are at a higher risk of false positive test results than samples of lighter colored hair. Despite these known issues, DISA advertises its hair testing as an accurate indicator of drug use. Plaintiffs Marvonte Wilson and Domonique Daniels are black men. Wilson was employed by Timec/Ferrovial from 2016 to 2019. Daniels was employed by Timec/Ferrovial from 2001 to 2019. Through contracts with Valero, Timec/Ferrovial placed the Plaintiffs at Valero's work sites. Valero required multiple types of drug tests, including hair tests, to be administered by DISA. In January and February 2019, respectively, Daniels and Wilson received positive hair test results for methamphetamines and cocaine, respectively, despite never having used those drugs. Daniels also received saliva and urine tests, which both came back negative for all drugs. Wilson received a urine test, which came back negative for all drugs. As a result of the false positive hair tests, DISA classified the Plaintiffs as "inactive" on the DCC platform. When the Plaintiffs notified DISA that the results were false positives, DISA informed them that they had two options: pay $175 for a retest of the same hair sample by DISA or complete a substance abuse course administered by DISA at a cost ranging from $600 to $850. The Plaintiffs informed Timec/Ferrovial that the results were false positives, but Timec/Ferrovial told them that they had to resolve the issue with DISA. Wilson was terminated by Valero and informed that he could not return to work for Timec/Ferrovial until he regained active status. A retest of his original sample again came back with a false positive. He refused to take the substance abuse course and did not again work for Timec/Ferrovial or Valero. Daniels inquired repeatedly with DISA about receiving a retest, but by the time DISA responded, the deadline for retesting had passed. During the time he was designative "inactive," Daniels was not allowed to work for either Timec/Ferrovial or Valero. He ultimately paid for and completed DISA's substance abuse course to regain his active status on DCC. However, the jobs he subsequently received were lower-ranking and paid less than his previous employment. First, the DISA argues that the Title VII, FEHA, and ADA claims should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that DISA was their "employer" and that DISA subjected them to adverse employment actions. The Plaintiffs argue that DISA was their indirect employer and that the "inactive" designations on DISA's platform constituted adverse employment actions. Judge Shubb finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that DISA was their indirect employer under Title VII, the FEHA, and the ADA. He further finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that DISA carried out adverse employment actions as required to state a claim under Title VII, the FEHA, and the ADA. Second, the Plaintiffs argue that although the negligence claim was filed outside that period, the statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling. Judge Shubb holds that the question is whether the Plaintiffs pled sufficient facts such that they could ultimately prove the statute was tolled. Given that many of the same facts underlie the negligence and discrimination claims, he says it is possible that the claims are at least so similar that the Defendants' investigation of the administrative claims will put them in a position to fairly defend the negligence claim such that equitable tolling applies. Accordingly, he denies the motion to dismiss the negligence claim. Third, Judge Shubb concludes that the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled that race was a but-for cause of the false positive test results or any resulting actions, including DISA listing them as inactive on DCC, Timec/Ferrovial suspending their job site placements, or Valero terminating their employment. The Plaintiffs have thus failed to state a claim under Section 1981. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Section 1981 claim will be dismissed in its entirety. Fourth, Judge Shubb says the Plaintiffs have therefore failed to sufficiently allege that the Defendants perceived them as having drug addictions. They do not provide any additional facts in support of their allegation that Timec, Ferrovial, and Valero, perceived the Plaintiffs as addicts. Accordingly, the ADA claim is dismissed in its entirety. Fifth, Judge Shubb holds that the Plaintiffs satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirements. The Plaintiffs' class and disparate impact claims could reasonably be expected to grow out of their administrative charges against Timec, Ferrovial, and Valero. An investigation into claims of disparate impact on a class of employees could reasonably be expected to grow out of the Plaintiffs' charges of discrimination. Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' Title VII, FEHA, and ADA claims are time-barred. Judge Shubb finds that the Plaintiffs' Title VII claims were timely filed and the Plaintiffs have failed to state claims under the ADA and Section 1981. He says the Plaintiffs have stated claims under Title VII and the FEHA, which were timely filed and administratively exhausted. They have also pled sufficient facts to allege that the statute of limitations applicable to the negligence claim was subject to equitable tolling. For these reasons, Judge Shubb grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' Section 1981 and ADA claims in their entirety. He denies the motion to dismiss in all other respects. The Plaintiffs have 20 days from the date of the Order to file an amended complaint if they can do so consistent with the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's May 12, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://rb.gy/nrs9u from Leagle.com. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Electronic Court Filing System ------------------------------------------------------------ Rusty Jacobs of North Carolina Public Radio reports that the rollout of an electronic court filing system in North Carolina has triggered a class-action lawsuit. The suit claims problems with the tools have resulted in unlawful arrests and prolonged detentions. Since the system, known as eCourts, and one of its components, a case-management program called Odyssey, were rolled out in four pilot counties in February, there have been significant slowdowns in high-volume district courtrooms. That is where attorneys and people representing themselves go to quickly resolve traffic tickets, seek domestic violence protective orders and to get their cases continued. Problems with Tyler were 'entirely foreseeable,' attorney says In 2019, following a bidding and selection process, the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts -- or AOC -- signed a $100 million contract with Texas-based Tyler Technologies to develop and implement eCourts as a replacement for the state's outdated 1980s-era mainframe computer and paper-based file system. But the lawsuit filed in federal court on May 23, 2023 claims eCourts has led to constitutional violations and that such issues were entirely foreseeable and, thus, avoidable. "There have been instances where Tyler Technologies has rolled out similar software in different states over the last decade where people have been wrongfully arrested, over-detained, re-arrested on charges that they thought they were cleared," said Zack Ezor, an attorney with the North Carolina law firm Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, and a representative of the two named plaintiffs in the class-action suit. Dating back to 2011, the lawsuit documents problems with Tyler rollouts of eCourts-like systems in Texas, California, and in Tennessee and Indiana where the company settled class-action lawsuits over alleged wrongful detentions and arrests. And the lawsuit notes that the selection committee that advised AOC to partner with Tyler warned the agency to investigate legal claims against the company before entering into a contract. "I knew this was coming," said Chas Post, an attorney who practices criminal law in Lee County, one of North Carolina's four pilot counties, with Lee, Johnston and Wake, where eCourts was rolled out in February. A launch in Mecklenburg County, originally set for May 8, has been delayed indefinitely. Lawsuit claims woman arrested after her case was resolved Post told WUNC in an earlier interview that one of his clients unjustly spent a night in jail because of eCourts. A couple of months ago, according to Post, his client had been facing charges in two separate cases: one a serious offense involving a shooting, the other a lower-level felonious drug possession case. With little evidence to go on, the prosecutor dropped the more serious case and Post's client pled to the drug possession for a probationary sentence and then went home, only to get arrested that night when heading out to the store. Post said he suspects that an earlier arrest warrant that should have been nullified after his client resolved his cases fell through one of Odyssey's digital cracks. It is a situation that is very similar to one of the plaintiffs represented by Zack Ezor in the class-action lawsuit filed this week. That woman, Timia Chaplin, had been arrested for missing a previous court date on a misdemeanor. At a subsequent court appearance, a judge dismissed the charges and the woman's case was fully resolved, or so she thought. She ended up being arrested again on the same failure-to-appear warrant. "There was no valid reason to arrest her at all," Ezor said. AOC says it has not "substantiated" any allegations of wrongful arrest due to Odyssey Like Ezor, attorney Chas Post said he believes there are many more cases like that out there. "When the government takes action and it starts affecting real people and their constitutional rights, then bad things happen and lawsuits start coming," Post said. Tyler Technologies along with the sheriffs' departments from the four pilot counties are being sued. In response to the WUNC inquiry, Tyler said it's their standard practice not to comment on pending litigation. AOC is not named in the lawsuit but said in a statement: "Since launching eCourts, NCAOC has consistently solicited court officials, attorneys, and the public to report any issues like those alleged in the complaint. We have investigated each report we have received and have not substantiated that any allegation of wrongful arrest or incarceration was caused by Odyssey [eCourts]." [GN] UCOR LLC: Seeks July 12 Response Date for Speer Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLTON SPEER, MALENA DENNIS, and ZACHARIAH DUNCAN, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. UCOR LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00426-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the briefing deadline related to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by a period of 37 days. The Defendant request that the Court grant an order modifying the Scheduling Order to re-set the deadline for the Defendant to file an amended response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to July 12, 2023, and the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a reply to July 19, 2023. 1. The Court initially set a deadline of June 5, 2023, for the Defendant to file any amended response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification so that the Defendant would have the opportunity to conduct discovery on the issues surrounding class certification. 2. The Court set a deadline of June 12, 2023, for the Plaintiffs to file any Reply in further support of their motion for class certification. 3. The parties have been pursuing written discovery. The Plaintiffs anticipate providing additional documents and information to the Defendant by May 19, 2023. The parties are currently working to schedule depositions of the named the Plaintiffs once the Plaintiff have produced this additional information. UCOR is an environmental cleanup contractor. A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated May 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WngFiO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: William S. Rutchow, Esq. Darius Walker, Jr., Esq. Luci L. Nelson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. SunTrust Plaza, Suite 1200 401 Commerce Street Nashville, TN 37219-2446 Telephone: (615) 254-1900 Facsimile: (615) 254-1908 UNITED STATES CELLULAR: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ United States Cellular 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 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed against TDS and UScellular and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint alleges that certain public statements made between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the "potential class period") regarding UScellular's business strategies to address subscriber demand violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period and demands unspecified monetary damages. UScellular is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of this action would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. UScellular intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously on the merits. UScellular is a wireless telecommunications service provider that purportedly operates in 21 states that collectively represent a total population of 32 million. UPPER DARBY TOWNSHIP: Candido Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Upper Darby Township. The case is styled as Mary G. Candido, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Upper Darby Township, Case No. 2:23-cv-01542-CMR (E.D. Pa., April 21, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Upper Darby Township -- https://www.upperdarby.org/ -- often shortened to Upper Darby, is a home rule township in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Stanoch, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street, Suite 2900 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 524-5777 Email: dstanoch@golombhonik.com - and - Ruben Honik, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market St., Ste. 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 435-1300 Email: ruben@honiklaw.com VENEZUELA: PDVSA Appeals Ruling in Gold Reserve Suit to 3rd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- PETROLEOS DE VENEZUELA SA (PDVSA) is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Gold Reserve Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Defendant, Case No. 1-22-mc-00453, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On Oct. 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a conditional order authorizing the issuance of a writ of attachment fieri facias, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Leonard P. Stark on Mar. 31, 2023. The cross-motion to dismiss filed by Petroleos de Venezuela, SA was denied. The Court found that PDVSA is not entitled to foreign sovereign immunity and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The appellate case is captioned Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 23-1652, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Apr. 11, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee GOLD RESERVE INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Katherine G. Connolly, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT 555 California Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 94104 Telephone: (628) 231-6816 - and - Kevin J. Mangan, Esq. Stephanie S. Riley, Esq. Matthew P. Ward, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON 1313 North Market Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 252-4361 (302) 559-8528 (302) 252-4320 Defendant-Intervenor BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA is represented by: Ginger D. Anders, Esq. Elaine J. Goldenberg, Esq. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq. Sarah Weiner, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500e Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 220-1107 (202) 220-1100 (202) 220-1141 Intervenor-Appellant PETROLEOS DE VENEZUELA SA is represented by: Jamie L. Brown, Esq. Samuel Taylor Hirzel, II, Esq. Aaron M. Nelson, Esq. HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 472-7318 (302) 472-7315 (302) 472-7312 - and - Aubre Dean, Esq. Kevin A. Meehan, Esq. Juan O. Perla, Esq. Joseph D. Pizzurro, Esq. Allesandra D. Tyler, Esq. CURTIS MALLET-PREVOST COLT & MOSLE 101 Park Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 696-6037 (212) 696-6197 (212) 696-6084 (212) 696-6000 (248) 884-2573 WALGREENS CO: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Theranos Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin reports that Walgreens has reached a tentative settlement in an Arizona class action accusing it of intentionally disregarding multiple signs that the Theranos "single finger prick" blood test was not capable of producing reliable results. In a May 22 notice, the drugstore giant asked Judge David Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to stay proceedings pending the filing of a proposed settlement agreement and a motion for preliminary approval. [GN] WASHINGTON, DC: Plaintiffs File Second Renewed Bid for Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELSA MALDONADO, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:10-cv-01511-RJL (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their second renewed motion for class certification. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and Local Civil Rule 23.1(b), the Plaintiffs renew, for the second time, their motion to certify the Plaintiff class. However, the Court has not yet addressed the merits of the Plaintiffs' request for class certification. On February 14, 2011, the Court issued a minute order staying briefing on the motion until after the Court ruled on the Defendants' first motion to dismiss. After two appeals returned the case to the Court, the Plaintiffs filed their first renewed motion for class certification on October 22, 2018. The District filed a motion to stay the briefing on the Plaintiffs' renewed motion and did not file an opposition. The Court subsequently denied the motion without prejudice sua sponte. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IBPhrA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kathleen L. Millian, Esq. Michael L. Huang, Esq. Stephanie A. Madison, Esq. TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP 1816 12th Street, NW, Suite 303 Washington, DC 20009-4422 Telephone: (202) 682-2100, ext. 8474 - and - Jane Perkins, Esq. NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM 1512 E. Franklin Street, Suite 110 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Telephone: (919) 968-6308 WEC ENERGY GROUP: Continues to Defend Munt Class Suit in Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------------ WEC Energy Group disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Munt class suit in the the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Division. In May 2022, a putative class action, Munt, et al. v. WEC Energy Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Division. The plaintiffs allege that WEC Energy Group and others breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the operation and oversight of the Employee Retirement Saving Plan (the "Plan") in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. The class is alleged to be participants in the Plan from May 10, 2016 through the date of judgment. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company is vigorously defending against the allegations made in this lawsuit and intends to continue to do so. WEC Energy is an American company based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that provides electricity and natural gas. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Product Liability Suit --------------------------------------------- Whirlpool Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that the company is currently defending against two lawsuits that have been certified for treatment as class actions in U.S. federal court, relating to two top-load washing machine models. In December 2019, the court in one of these lawsuits entered summary judgment in Whirlpool's favor. That ruling remains subject to appeal, and the other lawsuit is ongoing. Whirlpool Corporation is a kitchen and laundry company based in Michigan. WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Daly Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Michael Daly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Case No. 2023CH02149 was removed from the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 18, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02427. The Complaint alleges that WFM Group: (1) engages in deceptive advertising by selling 365 by Whole Foods Market Tilapia Fillets ("365 Tilapia") in packages containing less than the advertised amount of fish; (2) intentionally misrepresents the amount of fish contained in each package of 365 Tilapia; and (3) has been unjustly enriched by the alleged misrepresentation. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that WFM Group manufactures, advertises, markets and sells frozen tilapia filets in bags stating that each package contains 907 grams of fish product. Plaintiff alleges WFM Group short weighted the fish fillets by overglazing them in ice in order to sell the fish at a weight higher than the amount of fish actually delivered. Plaintiff contends he, and consumers like him, were injured because they were overcharged and deprived of the 907 grams of fish fillets promised in each bag.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve G. Perry, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C 707 Skokie Blvd., Suite 600 Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: (224) 218-0875 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: Steven.perry@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Joseph D. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH D. RYAN, P.C. 1896 Sheridan Road Highland Park, IL 60035 Phone: (847) 432-5971 Email: jrxan@ryanlawoffices.eom - and - Brian R. Blackman, Esq. Wells Blaxter, Esq. BLAXTER | BLACKMAN LLP 610 Montgomery Street, Suite 1110 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 500-7704 Email: bblackman@blaxterlaw.com wblaxter@blaxterlaw.com WP FREMAUX: Bid for Summary Judgments Due Sept. 27 in Sylve Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAZMYNE SYLVE, ET AL, v. WP FREMAUX SIDELL-LA OWNER, ET AL, Case No. 2:22-cv-00861-GGG-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Greg Gerard Guidry entered an order as follows: -- All pretrial motions, including motions Sept. 27, 2023 for summary judgments and motions in limine regarding the admissibility of expert testimony, shall be filed and served in sufficient time to permit hearing no later than: -- Any motion for partial summary judgment not be considered by the Courtunless the movant first obtains leave court, with good cause shown, to file such a motion. -- Additionally, all bases upon which summary judgment is sought should be included in a single pleading where a party seeks partial summary judgment on more than one issue. -- Depositions for trial use shall be taken Sept. 5, 2023 and all discovery shall be completed no later than: -- Written reports of experts, as defined by Aug. 18, 2023 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), Who may be witnesses for the Defendants fully setting forth all matters about which they will testify and the basis therefor shall be obtained and delivered to counsel for the Plaintiff as soon as possible, but in no event later than: -- Counsel for the parties shall file in the Aug. 18, 2023. record and serve upon their opponents a list of all witnesses who may or will be called to testify at trial and all exhibits which may or will be used at trial not later than: A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43hBTRr at no extra charge.[CC] ZOOM VIDEO: Trial in Securities Class Suit Set for May 24, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- Zoom Video Communications Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2023, that the United States District Court for the NDCA scheduled trial for the securities class suit on May 20, 2024. On April 7, 2020 and April 8, 2020, securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the NDCA. The plaintiffs are its purported stockholders. The complaints allege, among other things, that it violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact about its data privacy and security measures. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On May 18, 2020, the actions were consolidated. On November 4, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On December 23, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 20, 2021. Plaintiff filed an opposition to its motion to dismiss on July 9, 2021. The Company's reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on August 9, 2021. On February 16, 2022, the court granted in part, and denied in part, its motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2022, it moved for reconsideration of the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2022, the court ordered plaintiff to respond to its motion, which plaintiff did on March 29, 2022. On April 22, 2022, we answered the complaint. On March 8, 2023, the court denied our motion for reconsideration. On April 6, 2023, the court entered a scheduling order. Trial is scheduled for May 20, 2024. The Company had discussions with lead plaintiff's counsel regarding a potential settlement of this matter. Although the Company have not yet reached a binding agreement, and there can be no assurance that a final settlement will be reached or that a settlement, if reached, will be approved by the Court, those discussions are ongoing. Zoom Video Communications, Inc. and its subsidiaries connect people through its core unified communications offering, which brings together video, phone, chat, webinars events, and contact center, and enables meaningful experiences across disparate devices and locations. ********* 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 ***