/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230609.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, June 9, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 116
Headlines
101 MORONTA: Hermida, Luna Sue Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ANALOG DEVICES: Continues to Defend Ryan Class Suit in Delaware
ASHFORD INC: Continues to Defend Employment Laws Class Suit
AYTU BIOPHARMA: Settlement in Aponowicz Suit Gets Final Nod
AYTU BIOPHARMA: Settlement in Paquia Suit Gets Final Nod
BERRY'S RELIABLE: Appeals Rulings in Badon FLSA Suit to 5th Cir.
BIGSHOES.COM INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit in S.D. Ga.
BRISTOL COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Mello Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
BRISTOL COMMUNITY: Alexander Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Continues to Defend Rose Class Suit in N.J.
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Appeals Remand of John Doe Suit to 9th Cir.
CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Class Cert. Bid in Coe Suit Granted in Part
CUTERA INC: Erie Retirement Sues Over Overstated Revenue Growth
DRB GROUP: CMB Construction Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Bross Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Coulter Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Neff Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Schlintz Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Shultz Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Singh Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Stalcup Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Sutton Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Yungeberg Class Suit
EDISON MANAGEMENT CO: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FLOWERS FOODS: Appeals Dismissal, Arbitration Bid Denial in Brock
KEEPER TAX: Mohr Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Marketing
KLS LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parks Suit Alleges
LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS: Fudge Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
LVNV FUNDING: Gutierrez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
M & M Metals: Fails to Proper Overtime Premiums, Gomez Suit Says
MEDIGAP LIFE: Reimer Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
MILITARY ADVANTAGE: Young Sues Over Disclosure of Subscriber's Info
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: D'Angelo Files Suit in S.D. California
ODP CORPORATION: Pai Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PENNEY OPCO LLC: D'Angelo Files Suit in S.D. California
PETER TIMINELLI: Contreras Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Overtime
PGX HOLDINGS: Hansen Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
PIC20 GROUP LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PMC PROPERTY GROUP: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PORT OF SEATTLE: Codoni Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
RAMSEY, MN: Salcedo Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
SAZERAC CO: Koonce Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Beverages
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: E.D. New York Dismisses Securities Suit
TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PA: Appeals Remand Ruling in Mohr
UNITED PARCEL: $1.375-Mil. Class Deal in Diaz Suit Wins Prelim. OK
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Favell Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
VRA LLC: Roach Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pooling Practices
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Reports 245 Individual Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Reports $15.3MM Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Faces New Trial Over Talc Cancer Claims
*********
101 MORONTA: Hermida, Luna Sue Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO HERMIDA, AND UBALDO GUERRA LUNA, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 101 MORONTA FOOD CORP.
(d/b/a 101 DYCKMAN FOOD CENTER), and FERNANDO MORONTA,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04352 (S.D.N.Y., May 24,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and associated rules and
regulations.
Plaintiff Hermida was employed by Defendants as a clerk from on or
about 1995 until on or about November 2022 and Plaintiff Luna was a
clerk and delivery worker from on or about May 2010 until on or
about November 2022. Plaintiffs Hermida and Luna worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
compensation for the hours over 40 per week that they worked. Among
other things, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
record-keeping of their hours worked and failed to pay the
Plaintiffs "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they worked
over 10 hours, says the suit.
Defendants own, operate, and/or control a food center located at
101 Dyckman St., New York, New York under the name "101 DYCKMAN
FOOD CENTER". [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shawn R. Clark, Esq.
PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, Attorneys at Law, PLLC
45 Broadway, Suite 430
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 248-7431
Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
E-mail: sclark@tpglaws.com
ANALOG DEVICES: Continues to Defend Ryan Class Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Analog Devices 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 24, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Company continues to defend itself from
the Ryan class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.
On March 17, 2022, Walter E. Ryan and Ryan Asset Management, LLC,
purported stockholders of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (Maxim),
filed a putative class action in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware (C.A. No. 2022—0255) against the Company and the
former directors of Maxim.
The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties by the individual
defendants in connection with Maxim's agreement, as part of the
merger negotiations with the Company, to suspend Maxim dividends
for up to four quarters prior to the closing of the Company's
acquisition of Maxim.
The complaint further alleges that the Company aided and abetted
that alleged breach of fiduciary duties.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial,
plaintiffs' costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees, costs and other expenses.
On May 2, 2023, the Court of Chancery entered an order dismissing
the action in its entirety and with prejudice.
On May 9, 2023, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reargument. The
Company believes that it and the other defendants have meritorious
arguments in response to the motion and defenses to the underlying
allegations; however, the Company is currently unable to determine
the ultimate outcome of this matter or determine an estimate, or a
range of estimates, of potential losses, if any.
Analog Devices, Inc. is into semiconductors and other related
devices based in Massachusetts.
ASHFORD INC: Continues to Defend Employment Laws Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashford 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 11, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
the employment laws-related class suit in the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa
On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the Company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging
violations of certain California employment laws. The court has
entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (i)
a statewide class of non-exempt employees who were allegedly
deprived of rest breaks as a result of the subsidiary's previous
written policy requiring employees to stay on premises during rest
breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees
who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from
employment.
Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of
the class, however, the total number of employees in the class has
not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery. The opt out period has been extended until such time
that discovery has concluded.
If this litigation goes to trial, the Company expects that the
earliest the trial would occur is the last quarter of 2023, based
on various extensions to which the parties have agreed.
While it believes it is reasonably possible that we may incur a
loss associated with this litigation, because there remains
uncertainty under California law with respect to a significant
legal issue, discovery relating to class members continues, and the
trial judge retains discretion to award lower penalties than set
forth in the applicable California employment laws, it does not
believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably
estimable at this time.
Ashford Inc. provides products and services primarily to clients in
the hospitality industry, including Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc.
and Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc.
AYTU BIOPHARMA: Settlement in Aponowicz Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aytu Biopharma 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 11, 2023, that the Delaware Chancery
Court approved the Aponowicz class suit settlement in March 2023.
A putative class action was filed on February 9, 2022 in the
Delaware Chancery Court by Rafal Aponowicz derivatively and on
behalf of all Aytu stockholders, challenging the grant in 2021 of
certain stock option awards to directors and officers.
The stockholder contends those awards were in amounts exceeding the
shares available under the Company's 2015 equity incentive plan and
that the directors therefore breached their fiduciary duties and
breached a purported contract between them and stockholders.
The Complaint seeks rescission of the awards, unspecified damages
to stockholders as a result of the awards, and attorneys' fees.
The parties have agreed to settle these matters for various
corporate governance modifications and the payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.
The settlement was approved by the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in March 2023.
As of March 31, 2023, the Company had $0.4 million accrued for
finalized settled plaintiff attorney fees.
Aytu Biopharma, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Colorado.
AYTU BIOPHARMA: Settlement in Paquia Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
Aytu Biopharma 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 11, 2023, that the Delaware Chancery
Court approved the Paquia class suit settlement in March 2023.
A putative class action was filed on March 7, 2022 in the Delaware
Chancery Court by Paul John M. Paguia derivatively and on behalf of
all Aytu stockholders, challenging the grant in 2021 of certain
stock option awards to directors and officers.
The stockholder contends those awards were in amounts exceeding the
shares available under the Company's 2015 equity incentive plan and
that the directors therefore breached their fiduciary duties and
breached a purported contract between them and stockholders.
The Complaint seeks rescission of the awards, unspecified damages
to stockholders as a result of the awards, and attorneys' fees.
The parties have agreed to settle these matters for various
corporate governance modifications and the payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.
The settlement was approved by the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in March 2023.
As of March 31, 2023, the Company had $0.4 million accrued for
finalized settled plaintiff attorney fees.
Aytu Biopharma, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Colorado.
BERRY'S RELIABLE: Appeals Rulings in Badon FLSA Suit to 5th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berry's Reliable Resources, L.L.C. filed an appeal from court's
rulings entered in the lawsuit entitled STACEY BADON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
BERRY'S RELIABLE RESOURCES, LLC; and RHONDA WILLIAMS, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-12317, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
brought this class action suit on August 27, 2019 against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Louisiana Wage Payment Act.
On April 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on the issue of whether Plaintiffs are properly
classified as "independent contractors" or "employees."
On June 10, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment through an Order entered by Judge Wendy B.
Vitter. The Court held that evidence revealed that the Defendants
controlled hiring and firing, supervised Plaintiffs' work with
consumers and required Plaintiffs to comply with Berry's policies
and attend trainings arranged by the Defendants. In addition, the
Defendants handled the payroll and paid the Plaintiffs on an hourly
basis. The evidence in the record clearly supported that the
Defendants not only had the right to control the work of the
Plaintiffs, but they actually did so. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
are deemed employees under the LWPA. The Court ruled that the
Plaintiffs are properly classified as employees under the FLSA and
LWPA.
On November 17, 2022, Magistrate Judge Dana Douglas entered an
Order recommending that Plaintiff's Sept. 19, 2022 Motion to Set
Attorneys' Fees and Costs be GRANTED, and Plaintiffs be awarded
reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $181,062.00, and costs
in the amount of $7,102.32 for a total of $188,164.32.
On January 25, 2023, an Order was signed by Judge Vitter adopting
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation that Plaintiffs'
Motion to Set Attorneys' Fees and Costs be GRANTED as modified. The
Defendants were ordered to pay Plaintiffs attorneys' fees in the
amount of $181,062.00 and costs in the amount of $7,102.32, for a
total of $188,164.32. Plaintiffs' Motion to Award Liquidated
Damages was also GRANTED. The Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs
liquidated damages in the amounts specified in the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike
Defendants' Objections to Magistrate's Order Awarding Liquidated
Damages was DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants'
Objections to Magistrate's Order Awarding Attorneys [sic] Fees and
Costs was also DENIED.
On March 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order issuing WRIT of
Execution/Fieri Facias.
On April 26, 2023, Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown signed an
Order reassigning the case to Magistrate Judge Michael North.
On April 28, 2023, the Court entered an Order requesting additional
briefing not to exceed five pages from the Plaintiffs as to whether
this Court has jurisdiction to consider their April 3, 2023 Motion
for Garnishment given Defendants' filing of a Notice of Appeal.
On May 2, 2023, the Court ORDERED that the Defendants' April 20,
2023 Motion to Quash and/or Stay Plaintiffs' Writ of Garnishment is
DENIED.
On May 5, 2023, the Court granted a Motion for Writ of Garnishment,
Louisiana Department of Health added.
The Defendants file this petition seeking a review of the above
orders.
The appellate case is captioned as Badon v. Berry's Reliable
Resources, Case No. 23-30345, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 24, 2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants Berry's Reliable Resources, L.L.C., et al.,
are represented by:
Larry M. Aisola, Esq.
208 W. Judge Perez Drive
Chalmette, LA 70043
Telephone: (504) 913-6182
Plaintiffs-Appellees Stacey Badon, on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Jody Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON & JACKSON
201 Saint Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70170
BIGSHOES.COM INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BigShoes.com, Inc.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BigShoes.com, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04449 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Big Shoes -- https://bigshoes.com/ -- is an online footwear store
that offers shoes, socks, and insoles for men.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit in S.D. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance 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 11, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Newton class suit in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia.
Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
filed May 8, 2020).
Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff was the owner of a
universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance
Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who own or owned
life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life
insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a
guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased
by more than a specified percentage in any contract year.
Plaintiff also alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on
improper factors and should have decreased over time due to
improving mortality but did not.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages,
interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and
declaratory relief. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a
motion to dismiss in June 2020, which was granted in part and
denied in part in March 2021.
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint.
On January 18, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion on consent to
amend the second amended class action complaint to narrow the scope
of the class sought to those persons who own or owned life
insurance policies issued in Georgia.
The motion was granted on January 23, 2023, and the third amended
class action complaint was filed on January 23, 2023.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Brighthouse Holdings, LLC and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. It offers a range of annuity and
life insurance products to individuals.
BRISTOL COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Mello Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bristol Community
College. The case is styled as Carol Mello, Dawn Nardi, Aaron
Comeau, Elisa Santacroce, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bristol Community College, Case No.
2373CV00341 (Mass. Super. Ct., Bristol Cty., May 26, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases."
Bristol Community College -- https://www.bristolcc.edu/ -- is a
public institution in Fall River, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP
745 5th Ave., Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
BRISTOL COMMUNITY: Alexander Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Alexander, Jr., David Vito, Michael Clancy, and Mario
Canario, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRISTOL COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Case No. 1:23-cv-11194-AK
(D. Mass., May 26, 2023), is brought seeking relief from the
Defendant's failure to reasonably safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class
members' PII; their failure to reasonably provide timely
notification that Plaintiffs' and Class members' PII had been
compromised by an unauthorized third party; and for intentionally
and unconscionably deceiving Plaintiffs and Class members
concerning the status, safety, location, access, and protection of
their PII.
The Defendant collects, maintains, and stores its students' and
employees' highly sensitive personal information including, but not
limited to, their full names and Social Security numbers
("personally identifying information" or "PII").
Although Defendant is a sophisticated entity that has provided
services to tens of thousands of students, Defendant failed to
invest in adequate data security, thereby allowing hackers to
exfiltrate the highly-sensitive personal information of
approximately 56,400 individuals, including Plaintiffs and Class
members. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of
Defendant's failure to implement reasonable security protections
sufficient to prevent an eminently avoidable cyberattack,
unauthorized actors compromised Defendant's network and accessed
thousands of student files containing highly-sensitive PII.
Specifically, between December 14, 2022, and December 23, 2022,
Defendant's students' sensitive personal data was compromised when
unauthorized actors were able to breach Defendant's network and
access files containing approximately 56,400 individuals' PII (the
"Data Breach"). Despite the fact that some of the categories of PII
exposed in the Data Breach, such as Social Security numbers, cannot
be changed, Defendant failed to detect the breach until almost four
months later, on April 10, 2023, and failed to notify affected
individuals until May 10, 2023--approximately one month after
unauthorized individuals accessed Plaintiffs' and current and
former students' and employees' highly sensitive PII stored on
Defendant's systems.
As a result of Defendant's negligent, reckless, intentional, and/or
unconscionable failure to adequately satisfy its contractual,
statutory, and common-law obligations, Plaintiffs' and Class
members' PII was accessed and acquired by unauthorized third
parties for the express purpose of misusing the data and causing
further irreparable harm to the personal, financial, reputational,
and future well-being of Defendant's current and former students.
Plaintiffs and Class members face the real, immediate, and likely
danger of identity theft and misuse of their PII, especially
because their PII was specifically targeted by malevolent actors,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs received a letter from the Defendant concerning the
data breach.
The Defendant is a public community college with four campus
locations in Massachusetts, as well as comprehensive online
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
101 Federal Street, 19th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 203-8459
Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
205 N Monroe St.
Media, PA 19063
Phone: (215) 864-2800
Facsimile: (215) 964-2808
Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
Email: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Continues to Defend Rose Class Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Butterfly Network 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 11, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend the Rose class suit in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.
On February 16, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Rose
v. Butterfly Network, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-00854) was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company, its then President and CEO, its then
Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), the Chairman of its board of
directors, as well as Longview's Chairman (who is a director of the
Company), CEO, CFO and members of Longview's board of directors
prior to the Business Combination, alleging violations of Sections
10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5 and
14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
On August 8, 2022, the Court appointed KNS Holdings LLC DBPP UA
Jan. 1, 2016 as lead plaintiff and Levy & Korsinsky as lead
counsel.
On November 1, 2022, lead plaintiff, along with plaintiff Carl
Metzgar, filed an Amended Class Action Complaint.
In addition to alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, plaintiff also alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The alleged class consists of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between January 12, 2021
and November 15, 2021, persons who exchanged Longview shares for
the Company's common stock and persons who purchased Longview stock
pursuant, or traceable to, the Proxy/Registration Statement filed
with the SEC on November 27, 2020 or any amendment thereto.
The lawsuit is premised upon allegations that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or omissions about its
post-Business Combination business and financial prospects.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
Butterfly Network is a blank check company formed for the purpose
of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with
one or more businesses.
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Appeals Remand of John Doe Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cedars-Sinai Health System, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's April 24, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit
entitled JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. CV 23-870 DSF, in the U.S. District Court for
Central California, Los Angeles.
On Dec. 30, 2022, Plaintiff John Doe filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging
that Defendants Cedars-Sinai Health System and Cedars-Sinai Medical
Center (collectively Cedars-Sinai) disclosed their private
information, without their knowledge or consent, to Meta, Google,
Microsoft Bing, and other marketing and social medial platforms or
businesses.
Mr. Doe alleges that Cedars-Sinai transmitted portions of patients'
private communications with it through tracking code embedded in
its website and mobile application, to third parties for the sole
purpose of sharing such information with marketing entities.
Cedars-Sinai installed the tracking code to obtain insight about
how patients and potential patients use its website. Moreover, by
installing the tracking code, Cedars-Sinai enabled the marketing
entities to use patients' Private Information to target them with
advertising by yet other, unrelated businesses.
Mr. Doe asserts the following causes of action: (1) violations of
California's Invasion of Privacy Act; (2) invasion of privacy in
violation of the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1 and
California common law; (3) breach of implied contract; (4) breach
of contract; (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (6) negligence; (7) violation of California's
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; and (8) violation of
the California's Unfair Competition Law.
On Feb. 3, 2023, Cedars-Sinai removed the case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), the federal officer removal statute.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Dale S. Fischer of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
entered an Order on April 24, 2023 granting the Plaintiff's motion
to remand. The case was remanded to the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles.
The appellate case is captioned as John Doe v. Cedars-Sinai Health
System, et al., Case No. 23-55466, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 25, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Cedars-Sinai Health System and Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 1, 2023;
-- Appellants Cedars-Sinai Health System and Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center opening brief is due on July 24, 2023;
-- Appellee John Doe answering brief is due on August 22, 2023;
and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., are
represented by:
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
Dyanne J. Cho, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 764-4013
- and -
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
999 3rd Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 566-7092
Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street
San Diego, CA 92101
CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Class Cert. Bid in Coe Suit Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONALD COE, LINDA SMITH, and EDWARD YOST, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT CENTER, INC., and YOUNG MANAGEMENT CORP.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-2047-EFM (D. Kan.), Judge Eric F. Melgren
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas grants in
part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
The named Plaintiffs seek class certification of six issues in
their ongoing lawsuit against Cross-Lines and Young. The lawsuit
arises out of the allegedly rampant bed bug infestations prevailing
at Cross-Lines' apartment complexes.
Each of the named Plaintiffs, two septuagenarians and one
octogenarian, rent residential apartments in apartment complexes
owned by Cross-Lines and operated by Young, Cross-Lines' property
manager. Cross-Lines is a nonprofit corporation, having as its goal
the provision of rental housing to elderly families and
individuals. Because of its nonprofit status, Cross-Lines receives
federal subsidies to purportedly allow it to offer lower rent.
As colorfully stated in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, the apartments'
neglected condition leave elderly and disabled tenants captive to
bed-bug infestations, decaying rodent bodies, flooding, leaking,
and mold. After the Defendants successfully moved to dismiss two of
the Plaintiffs' claims, seven remain: (1) injunctive relief; (2)
violations of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"); (3) violation of the
implied warranty of habitability; (4) breach of contract and
statutory duty; (5) failure to provide essential services; (6)
negligence; and (7) violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection
Act.
The present Motion focuses on the bed bug infestation. Since 2016,
90% or more of the apartment units at Cross-Lines have had
documented bed bug activity, with nearly half of those infested
units requiring six or more treatments. The Plaintiffs rely on
these numerous and unending infestations for each of their
remaining claims.
In their present Motion, the Plaintiffs seek certification of an
issue class for the following proposed issues:
1. Has the infestation of bed bugs been so pervasive during
the class period that every tenant was affected?
2. Did the Defendants breach their standard of care by not
requiring, and enforcing, the pest control companies to perform
surrounding-unit inspections whenever a unit is found to have bed
bugs?
3. Did the Defendants breach their standard of care by
refusing, or failing, to perform a full-building inspection of all
units (Phase I and Phase II) at the same time?
4. Does the presence of bed bugs in an apartment make that
unit unsafe, unsanitary, and/or unfit for living in?
5. Can an apartment which has bed bugs have an above-zero fair
market value?
6. Are extermination services essential for an apartment unit
in a multi-family housing structure when an adjacent unit has live
bed bug activity? If yes, what services are essential (i.e.,
inspection, treatment, etc.)?
Judge Melgren states that in determining the propriety of a class
action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs
have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but
rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met. As an initial
step, he says Rule 23(a) requires the proposed representative
plaintiffs to show: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.
If the plaintiffs meet Rule 23(a)'s requirements, they must then
show that the class fits within one of the Rule 23(b) categories.
Where, as in the instant case, plaintiffs seek to certify a class
under Rule 23(b)(3), they must show that questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members, and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy.
Finally, courts may certify a class as to only certain issues under
Rule 23(c)(4)(A) if doing so would materially advance the
litigation. If plaintiffs restrict their proposed class to a
specific issue, then the proposed class must satisfy the
requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) only with respect to that
issue. Because the Plaintiffs restrict their proposed class to just
these issues, Judge Melgren examines Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)'s
requirements solely as to these issues.
First, Judge Melgren determines whether the Plaintiffs can
establish a prima facie case under Rule 23(a)'s four requirements.
He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated
that joinder of all class members is impracticable; (ii) the fact
that the proposed class shares five other common questions does not
preclude class certification; (iii) although the extent to which
class members have experienced injury from bed bug infestations
will differ on an individual basis, all class members would rely on
the same legal and remedial theories to recover against the
Defendants; and (iv) the counsel is competent and sufficiently
experienced to vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the
class.
Second, the Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' proposed class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3), claiming that the Plaintiffs
cannot show either predominance or superiority. Naturally, the
Plaintiffs disagree.
Judge Melgren finds that the individualized issues will dominate
the overall proposed issue. He also finds that class certification
of the Plaintiffs' proposed issues two through six is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy under Rule 23(b)(3).
Third, the Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint the following
attorneys as class counsel: Bryce B. Bell, Andrew R. Taylor, and
Jenilee V. Zentrich of Bell Law, LLC; Jeffrey M. Lipman of Lipman
Law Firm, P.C.; and Gina Chiala and Amy Sweeny of Davis Heartland
Center for Jobs and Freedom. The Defendants offer no objection to
any of the proposed class counsel.
After a review of the relevant factors, Judge Melgren considers the
proposed counsel more than adequate and appoints the same as class
counsel. Therefore, he appoints Bryce B. Bell, Andrew R. Taylor,
Jenilee V. Zentrich, Jeffrey M. Lipman, Gina Chiala, and Amy Sweeny
as the class counsel.
In view of his analysis, Judge Melgren grants in part and denies in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Specifically,
he certifies the issue classes for the Plaintiffs' proposed issue
two through six, while denying certification of their first
proposed issue.
Bryce B. Bell, Andrew R. Taylor, Jenilee V. Zentrich, Jeffrey M.
Lipman, Gina Chiala, and Amy Sweeny are appointed as the class.
The Memorandum and Order at Doc. 178 is withdrawn.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Amended Memorandum &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mzza7e4n from
Leagle.com.
CUTERA INC: Erie Retirement Sues Over Overstated Revenue Growth
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUTERA, INC.,
DAVID H. MOWRY, ROHAN SETH, and J. DANIEL PLANTS, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-02560 (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5.
Between February 17, 2021, and May 9, 2023, the Defendants
repeatedly assured investors that the company would deliver
sustainable revenue growth in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, the company's common stock price substantially declined
from a close of $40.45 per share on January 6, 2023, to $14.14 per
share on May 11, 2023.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants overstated the
sustainability of Cutera's revenue growth, failed to disclose
significant conflicts among members of the Company's senior
leadership and board of directors, and failed to disclose several
material weaknesses in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting. As a result of Defendant's wrongful acts and
omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the
Company’s common stock, Plaintiff and other members of the class
have suffered significant damages, says the Plaintiff.
Cutera, a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
in Brisbane, California, is a medical aesthetic device company that
provides equipment for beauty treatments. Its common stock trades
in the US on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker
symbol "CUTR." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
- and -
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Barbara A. Schwartz, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
bschwartz@ktmc.com
DRB GROUP: CMB Construction Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as CMB Construction Company, on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated v. DRB Group North Carolina, LLC, DRB
Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Dan Ryan Builders, Case No. 23-CVS-317 was
removed from the Franklin County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 3,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00242-FL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
DRB Group -- https://www.drbgroup.com/ -- is the parent company to
builder brands and settlement services and an expert in real estate
development.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catharine E. Edwards, Esq.
EDWARDS BEIGHTOL, LLC
Post Office Box 6759
Raleigh, NC 27628
Phone: (919) 636-5100
Fax: (919) 495-6868
Email: cee@eblaw.com
- and -
James A. Barnes, IV, Esq.
Ryan D. Oxendine, Esq.
OXENDINE PRICE & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
6500 Creedmoor Road, Suite 212
Raleigh, NC 27613
Phone: (919) 848-4333
Fax: (919) 848-4707
Email: jim@oxendinebarnes.com
ryan@oxendinebarnes.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kyle Andrew Medin, Esq.
Michelle A. Liguori, Esq.
Luke J. Farley, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
4131 Parklake Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27612
Phone: (919) 865-7092
Fax: (919) 865-7010
Email: kyle.medin@elliswinters.com
michelle.liguori@elliswinters.com
luke.farley@elliswinters.com
- and -
Thomas Hamilton Segars, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS
P.O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Phone: (919) 865-7000
Fax: (919) 865-7010
Email: tom.segars@elliswinters.com
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Bross Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA BROSS, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09036-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 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/450GA3J at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Coulter Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM COULTER, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09106-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 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BJ8P9X at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Neff Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP NEFF, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09107-NKL (Court), (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 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MoCpaM at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Schlintz Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schlintz v. DST Systems
Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09127 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct 19, 2021), 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 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W8AGtu at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Shultz Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shultz v. DST Systems
Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09114 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct. 18, 2021), 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 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pIixGv at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Singh Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARMINDERJIT SINGH, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-9195-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 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W0C9BX at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Stalcup Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stalcup v. DST Systems
Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09127 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct 19, 2021), 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 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41upjx3 at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Sutton Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON SUTTON, v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09052-NKL (Court), (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 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bn0KYe at no extra charge.[CC]
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Yungeberg Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT YUNGEBERG, v. DST
Systems Inc., Case No. 4:21-09038-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 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pJVgE7 at no extra charge.[CC]
EDISON MANAGEMENT CO: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edison Management
Co., LLC. The case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Edison Management Co., LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03952 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Edison Management Company LLC was founded in 1969. The Company's
line of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FLOWERS FOODS: Appeals Dismissal, Arbitration Bid Denial in Brock
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated May 16, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled
ANGELO BROCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.; FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC;
and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF DENVER, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02413, in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado - Denver.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is a class
action filed by the Plaintiff on Sept. 19, 2022 against the
Defendants for failure to pay appropriate minimum wages and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.
On May 16, 2023, Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an Order
denying Defendants' March 6, 2023 Motion to Dismiss or Stay
Proceedings and Compel Individual Arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as Brock v. Flowers Foods, Inc., et
al., Case No. 23-1182, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 25, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement was due June 8, 2023 for Flowers
Bakeries, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Denver, LLC and Flowers Foods,
Inc.;
-- Transcript order form was due June 8, 2023 for Flowers
Bakeries, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Denver, LLC and Flowers Foods,
Inc.;
-- Notice of appearance was due June 8, 2023 for Angelo Brock,
Flowers Bakeries, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Denver, LLC and
Flowers Foods, Inc.; and
-- Disclosure statement was due June 8, 2023 for Flowers
Bakeries, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Denver, LLC and Flowers Foods,
Inc.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia limited
liability company, is represented by:
Jared Lee Palmer, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 442-4810
- and -
David Lee Zwisler, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
2000 South Colorado Boulevard
Tower 3, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80222
Telephone: (303) 764-6800
Plaintiff-Appellee ANGELO BROCK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Shaun A. Markley, Esq.
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
- and -
Wadi Muhaisen, Esq.
MUHAISEN & MUHAISEN
1225 17th Street, Suite 2520
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 872-0084
KEEPER TAX: Mohr Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY MOHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEEPER TAX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:23-cv-60972-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2024) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
Allegedly, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text message
marketing, including to individuals who have registered their
telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to
those who have not provided Defendant with their prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA. In addition, the
Defendant's unsolicited text message spam caused Plaintiff's harm,
including violations of their statutory rights, trespass,
annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon
seclusion, says the suit.
Keeper Tax, Inc. is a foreign limited liability company that owns a
tax filing software designed for people with 1099 contracting and
freelance income. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
KLS LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parks Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ACE PARKS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KLS LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 230502707
(Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., May 24, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
From approximately September 2022 until approximately February
2023, Defendant employed Plaintiff at its Philadelphia distribution
center as an order picker and paid him an hourly wage. At the end
of the workday, Defendant generally required Plaintiff and other
class members to "clock out", walk to a security screening area,
and then wait in line and undergo a security screening before
exiting the facility. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff for time
associated with such mandatory security screenings. In addition,
the Defendant also illegally terminated Plaintiff due to his
required absence from work in order to comply with a federal
subpoena, says the suit.
KLS Logistics, Inc. is a corporation headquartered in Westerville,
Ohio and registered to do business in Pennsylvania. It is a leading
third-party logistics provider. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS: Fudge Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Love's Travel Stops &
Country Stores, Inc. The case is styled as William Fudge, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Love's Travel Stops
& Country Stores, Inc. doing business as: Love's, Case No.
2:23-cv-00030 (M.D. Tenn., May 26, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores doing business as Love's --
https://www.loves.com/ -- is an American family-owned chain of more
than 600 truck stop and convenience stores in 42 states in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan E. Delius, Esq.
DELIUS & MCKENZIE, PLLC.
124 Court Avenue
Sevierville, TN 37862
Phone: (865) 643-8913
Email: bdelius@deliusmckenzie.com
- and -
Daniel Goldman, Esq.
Thomas H. Bienert, Jr., Esq.
BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS
903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
San Clemente, CA 92673
Phone: (949) 369-3700
Email: dgoldman@bklwlaw.com
tbienert@bklwlaw.com
- and -
Gordon Ball, Esq.
Jonathan Turner Ball, Esq.
GORDON BALL
3728 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37205
Phone: (865) 525-7028
Email: gball@gordonball.com
- and -
Times Wang, Esq.
NORTH RIVER LAW PLLC
1300 I Street NW, Suite 400E
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 838-6489
Email: twang@cohenmilstein.com
LVNV FUNDING: Gutierrez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LVNV Funding, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Tammy Gutierrez, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital
Services L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-00824-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal., May 26,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
LVNV Funding LLC -- https://www.lvnvfunding.com/ -- is a company
that buys charged-off accounts from companies like credit card
issuers and personal loan lenders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Merriman, Esq.
HILGERS GRABEN, PLLC
655 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 369-6232
Email: mmerriman@hilgersgraben.com
M & M Metals: Fails to Proper Overtime Premiums, Gomez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Pineda Gomez, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated members of the FLSA opt-in collective v. M & M Metals, LLC
and Terry Meyer, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00127-AW-ZCB (N.D.
Fla., May 24, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff began working with Defendants as an assembly worker
in or before September 10, 2017 until November 15, 2022. He was
classified as a W-2 employee and him on a bi-weekly basis. However,
during his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked
hours in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving overtime
compensation as required by federal and state law. The Defendants
did not pay Plaintiff any additional pay for overtime hours that he
worked during the relevant time period. Instead, Defendants paid
Plaintiff their hourly rate (i.e., "straight time") for each work
hour they recorded in the company's timekeeping system, including
their overtime hours. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages and for all reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs associated with prosecuting this
lawsuit.
M & M Metals, LLC is a business that headquartered, located and
conducts business in Alachua, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC
6232 N. Pulaski, #300
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: 773-550-3775
Email: dschlade@justicialaboral.com
danschlade@gmail.com
MEDIGAP LIFE: Reimer Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUHI REIMER, individual and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MEDIGAP LIFE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00683
(E.D. Va., May 24, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Virginia
Telephone Privacy Protection Act.
The complaint asserts that over a period of 77 days starting
February 8, 2022, the Plaintiff received eight phone calls from six
phone numbers, and one text message from a seventh phone number in
an effort to sell insurance, all without prior express written
consent and despite listing his number on the DNC Registry and
asking Medigap to place him on its internal Do Not Call list.
Medigap Life, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company with its
principal place of business at 1900 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Suite
W300, Boca Raton, Florida. The company sells health insurance to
fill gaps in one's Medicare coverage. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
John W. Barrett, Esq.
Panida A. Anderson, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: 202) 548-7790
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: GPorter@baileyglasser.com
JBarrett@baileyglasser.com
PAnderson@baileyglasser.com
- and -
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Truist Place
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
MILITARY ADVANTAGE: Young Sues Over Disclosure of Subscriber's Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DARRICK YOUNG, JEREMY LAM, and DAVID RAMIREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MILITARY
ADVANTAGE, INC. d/b/a MILITARY.COM, Defendant, Case No.
2023LA000535 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, DuPage Cty., May 24, 2023)
arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.
The Plaintiffs' claims arise from Defendant's alleged practice of
knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc.
("Facebook"), data containing its digital subscribers' personally
identifiable information or Facebook ID and the computer file
containing video and its corresponding URL viewed.
Military Advantage, is an online resource and media company that
provides news and information to consumers with a focus on military
members, veterans, and those with military affinity headquartered
in Woburn, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7142
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
jarisohn@bursor.com
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: D'Angelo Files Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan North America,
Inc. The case is styled as Noelle D'Angelo, Anthony D'Angelo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Nissan North America, Inc. doing business as: Infiniti, Case No.
3:23-cv-00980-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal., May 26, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Nissan North America, Inc. -- http://www.nissanusa.com/-- doing
business as Nissan USA, is the North American headquarters, and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
Ronald Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
ron@consumersadvocates.com
ODP CORPORATION: Pai Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The ODP Corporation,
et al. The case is styled as Benson Pai, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The ODP Corporation,
Veyer, LLC Case No. 23CV034482 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May
26, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
The ODP Corporation -- https://www.theodpcorp.com/homepage -- is an
American office supply holding company headquartered in Boca Raton,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
PENNEY OPCO LLC: D'Angelo Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penney OpCo, LLC. The
case is styled as Noelle D'Angelo, Anthony D'Angelo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penney OpCo, LLC
doing business as: JCPenney, Case No. 3:23-cv-00981-BAS-DDL (S.D.
Cal., May 26, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Penney OpCo LLC, doing business as JCPenney --
http://www.jcprestructuring.com/-- and often abbreviated JCP, is
an American department store chain that operates 667 stores across
49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
Ronald Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
ron@consumersadvocates.com
PETER TIMINELLI: Contreras Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzalo Contreras, Jose A. Mendez, and Wilfredo Juarez, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. PETER TIMINELLI and
PETE TIMINELLI LANDSCAPING INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-03531-GRB-JMW
(E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023), is brought under the New York Labor Law
(collectively "NYLL") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
from the Defendants damages resulting from violating the following:
unpaid wages for overtime work performed, liquidated damages, New
York Overtime Laws; New York Spread of Hours Provisions; New York
Notice Requirements; New York Wage Statement Requirements; New York
Records Requirements; Civil Damages for Fraudulent Filing of
Returns; attorneys' fees; interest; and all costs and disbursements
associated with this action.
While the Plaintiffs worked in excess of forty hours a week,
Defendants willfully failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the overtime hours worked. Also, the Plaintiffs
typically worked more than ten hours each day during the week, yet
Defendants willfully failed to pay them spread of hours wages. The
Defendants failed to compensate employees properly for all hours
worked, including, but not limited to, spread-of-hours compensation
when employees worked more than 10 hours per day. The Defendants
failed to post or keep posted a notice explaining the minimum wage
and overtime pay rights provided by the NYLL. The Defendants knew
that nonpayment of overtime would economically injure Plaintiff and
violated State laws. The Defendants committed the following acts
against Plaintiffs, knowingly, intentionally and willfully, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as landscapers and
construction workers.
Pete Timinelli Landscaping, Inc. is a landscaping and design
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
Hempstead, NY 11550
Phone: (516) 280.4600
Facsimile: (516) 280.4530
Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com
PGX HOLDINGS: Hansen Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIRSTEN HANSEN on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PGX HOLDINGS, INC.; PROGREXION TELESERVICES,
INC.; PROGREXION MARKETING, INC.; PROGREXION ASG, INC.; EFOLKS,
LLC; CREDITREPAIR.COM, INC.; CREDIT.COM, INC.; and JOHN C. HEATH,
ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00337 (D. Utah,
May 24, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
Plaintiff Kirsten Hansen was terminated along with an estimated 900
other similarly situated employees as part of, or as the
foreseeable result of mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by
Defendants on April 5, 2023, and within 90 days of that date. She
seeks to enforce the WARN Act's statutory remedy of 60 days' back
pay and benefits for herself and those similarly situated for the
Defendants' failure to provide WARN notice prior to their
terminations.
PGX is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Salt Lake City, Utah. PGX is the holding company that wholly
owns and controls Defendants Progrexion ASG, Progrexion
Teleservices, Progrexion Marketing, eFolks, Credit.Com and
CreditRepair.com [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George W. Pratt, Esq.
BUCHALTER, P.C.
60 E. South Temple, Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 401-8688
E-mail: gpratt@buchalter.com
- and -
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
René S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com
rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
PIC20 GROUP LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Pic20 Group, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Pic20 Group, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04455 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The PIC20 Group LLC -- https://pic-20.com/ -- produces and
distributes personal care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
PMC PROPERTY GROUP: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PMC Property Group,
Inc. The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. PMC Property Group, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-01666-BMS (E.D. Pa., May 2, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
PMC Property Group, Inc. -- https://www.pmcpropertygroup.com/ -- is
a property management firm based in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh,
Baltimore, Richmond, New Haven and Miami.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GLANZBERG
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Fax: (267) 319-1993
Email: david.glanzberg@gtlawpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric J Bronstein
LEWIS BRISBOIS & SMITH LLP
550 E. Swedesford Road Suite 270
Wayne, PA 19087
Phone: (215) 977-4100
Email: eric.bronstein@lewisbrisbois.com
PORT OF SEATTLE: Codoni Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cindy Codoni, Michelle Geer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Port of Seattle, Alaska
Air Group, Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 23-00002-07049-6 was
removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on May 26, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00795 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Airplane.
The Port of Seattle -- http://www.portseattle.org/-- is a
government agency overseeing the seaport of Seattle, Washington,
United States as well as Seattle–Tacoma International
Airport.[BN]
The Plaintiff are represented by:
Garth D. Wojtanowicz, Esq.
CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP PLLC
800 5th Ave., Ste. 4100
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 447-1456
Fax: (206) 260-2994
Email: garthw@cornerstonelawgroup.net
- and -
Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
Martin D. McLean, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
Shelby R. Smith, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (WA)
1301 2nd Avenue, Ste 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
Email: jerrodp@hbsslaw.com
martym@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
shelby@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
TomL@hbsslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Beth S. Ginsberg, Esq.
Maren Roxanne Norton, Esq.
Margarita V. Latsinova, Esq.
Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq.
STOEL RIVES (WA)
600 University St., Ste. 3600
Seattle, WA 98101-3197
Phone: (206) 386-7581
Fax: (206) 386-7500
Email: beth.ginsberg@stoel.com
maren.norton@stoel.com
rita.latsinova@stoel.com
vanessa.power@stoel.com
- and -
Elizabeth C. Black, Esq.
PORT OF SEATTLE
2711 Alaskan Way
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone: (206) 787-4697
Email: black.e@portseattle.org
- and -
Marie E. Quasius, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP (WA)
925 Fourth Ave Ste 2900
Seattle, WA 98104-1158
Phone: (206) 370-8195
Email: marie.quasius@klgates.com
- and -
Steven W. Fogg, Esq.
Lucio E. Maldonado, Esq.
CORR CRONIN LLP
1015 Second Ave., 10th Fl
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 625-8600
Email: sfogg@corrcronin.com
lmaldonado@corrcronin.com
- and -
Gregory J. Hollon, Esq.
Malaika M. Eaton, Esq.
Michael P. Hatley, Esq.
MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC
600 University St., Ste. 2700
Seattle, WA 98101-3143
Phone: (206) 467-1816
Fax: (206) 624-5128
Email: ghollon@mcnaul.com
meaton@mcnaul.com
mhatley@mcnaul.com
- and -
Joseph Edmonds, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER (IRVINE)
3161 Michelson Dr., Ste. 1200
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: (949) 451-4053
Email: jedmonds@gibsondunn.com
RAMSEY, MN: Salcedo Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Brenda Salcedo, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 24, 2023
entered in the lawsuit entitled Brenda Salcedo, Dennis M. Novack,
and Janet C. Novack, all individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Todd R. Uecker, Registrar of
Titles, in and for the County of Ramsey and State of Minnesota, in
his individual and official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No.
0:22-cv-02045-DWF, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.
In this action, the Plaintiffs allege that Ramsey County registrars
of title have improperly been issuing certificates of title that
include references to prior certificates of title that contain
illegal racial covenants. In their 119-page class action complaint,
the Plaintiffs allege 16 counts under both federal and state law
seeking damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. All of
Plaintiffs' claims relate to allegations that the named county
registrars have issued certificates of title that refer to other
certificates of title that contain racial covenants.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Hon. Judge
Donovan W. Frank entered an Order on April 24, 2023, holding that:
1. The Defendant Schowalter's motion to dismiss is granted.
2. The Defendant AlexSoft's motion to dismiss is granted.
3. The Plaintiffs' claims against Schowalter and AlexSoft are
dismissed with prejudice.
4. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
5. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied as moot.
6. The Plaintiffs' motion to amend is denied.
The Court said, "The Defendants have made various arguments
regarding the futility of the proposed additional claims. The Court
need not reach the futility arguments in light of the Court's
conclusions above. Even so, the Court briefly addresses Plaintiffs'
proposed claim for punitive damages. Such damages are allowed in
civil actions, "only upon clear and convincing evidence that the
acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or
safety of others." The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs' motion to
amend."
The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against both Schowalter and
AlexSoft. All claims asserted against these two Defendants were
dismissed with prejudice. Remaining in this action are Plaintiffs'
claims against Ramsey County Defendants. However, with respect to
those claims, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction for failure to demonstrate irreparable harm or
likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' motions to certify class and to amend the pleadings. In
light of the current efforts throughout the state to discharge
racial covenants, the Court held that the Plaintiffs' claim for any
damages in the case appears weak, and the Court believes it is in
the parties' best interests to attempt to resolve this matter. In
addition, given the Court's decision, the Court suggested that the
parties reach out to the Minnesota County Attorneys Association and
the City Attorneys in the State of Minnesota.
The appellate case is captioned as Brenda Salcedo, et al. v. Todd
Uecker, et al., Case No. 23-2283, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 25, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript is due on or before July 5, 2023;
-- Appendix is due on July 14, 2023;
-- BRIEF APPELLANT, Dennis M. Novack, Janet C. Novack and Brenda
Salcedo is due on July 14, 2023; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Brenda Salcedos, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Lawrence Herman Crosby, Esq.
CROSBY & ASSOCIATES
2416 Como Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55108
Telephone: (651) 635-0818
Defendants-Appellees Todd J. Uecker, Registrar of Titles, in and
for the County of Ramsey and State of Minnesota, in his individual
and official capacity, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated within and without Ramsey County, et al., are represented
by:
Robert David Hahn, Esq.
Rachel Kitze Collins, Esq.
Charles Nathan Nauen, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
- and -
Rebecca J. Krystosek, Esq.
Robert B. Roche, Esq.
RAMSEY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
121 Seventh Place, E., Suite 4500
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 266-3128
SAZERAC CO: Koonce Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Beverages
------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY KOONCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:23-cv-04323 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's unjust enrichment and violations of Sections 349 and
350 of the New York General Business Law in connection with the
Defendant's deceptive labeling and sale of Parrot Bay Malt
Beverage.
Allegedly, Sazerac has used the familiar nature of the symbols--the
brand name of "Parrot Bay" and not one difference in the
tropic-themed logo--to sell products that are, decidedly, not rum.
In addition, Sazerac sells a "Parrot Bay Malt Beverage" that does
not adequately or expressly communicate the lack of alcoholic
content as compared to the original it copies, to the detriment of
consumers, says the suit.
Sazerac Company, Inc. is a liquor company registered in both
Louisiana and Kentucky with its principal place of business at 101
Magazine Street, 5th Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
121 N. Washington Ave., 4th Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
- and –
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, #10158
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: E.D. New York Dismisses Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 22-CV-1167 (WFK) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge
William F. Kuntz, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Amended Class Action Complaint and dismisses the Amended Class
Action Complaint with prejudice.
Before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed by Ericsson and
Börje Ekholm, Carl Mellander, and Xavier Dedullen (collectively,
the "Individual Defendants") to dismiss the CAC. Lead Plaintiff
Boston Retirement System ("BRS"), on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Ericsson's securities, opposes the motion.
The federal securities class action is brought by a putative class
of investors who acquired Ericsson's American Depositary Shares
("ADS") between April 27, 2017 and March 1, 2022. The CAC alleges
the Defendants made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
The CAC also raises a claim under Section 10(b) and SEC Rule
10b-5(a) and (c) alleging the Defendants employed a scheme to
defraud investors. Finally, the CAC raises a control-person claim
against the Individual Defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
Ericsson is a Swedish multinational communications company that
develops, sells, and manages telecommunications infrastructure
including software, hardware, and information technology services.
The core of Ericsson's business consists of implementing
telecommunications infrastructure to support mobile broadband
across the globe.
Defendants Ekholm, Mellander, and Dedullen each served as Company
executives during the class period. Ekholm has served as Ericsson's
CEO since 2017, Mellander has served as Ericsson's CFO since 2017,
and Dedullen served as Ericsson's Chief Legal Officer between 2018
and March 2022.
BRS is a governmental defined benefit pension that administers
retirement benefits to all employees of the City of Boston, as well
as its autonomous agencies, including: the City of Boston, the
Boston Planning & Development Agency, the Boston Housing Authority,
the Boston Public Health Commission, and the Boston Water and Sewer
Commission. It oversees the pensions of more than 34,000 retired
and active members" and the current value of its assets under
management is $5.4 billion. BRS raises the instant claims on behalf
of itself and similarly situated investors, who acquired Ericsson's
ADS within the class period of April 27, 2017, to March 1, 2022.
Ericsson began operating in Iraq following the withdrawal of the
United States military in 2011. According to the CAC, the Company
established operations in Iraq because the country was a massively
profitable target for growth and expansion. BRS claims Ericsson's
operations in Iraq were extremely successful, purportedly earning
$1.9 billion in revenue between 2011 and 2018.
During the same period, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and
SEC began investigating Ericsson's business practices in developing
countries. These investigations culminated on Dec. 6, 2019 when
Ericsson pled guilty to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act ("FCPA") arising from its operations in Djibouti, China,
Vietnam, Indonesia, and Kuwait, accepted a $1 billion fine, and
entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA") with DOJ.
As part of the DPA, Ericsson admitted to crimes, illegal business
practices, bribes, and corruption in the aforementioned countries.
Additionally, and particularly relevant to BRS's instant claims,
the DPA required Ericsson to disclose to DOJ any potential FCPA
violations in other countries in which it operates, as well as any
internal investigations related to possible FCPA violations.
BRS alleges while the Government was investigating Ericsson, the
Company engaged law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP as outside
counsel to conduct an internal investigation into Ericsson's
business practices in Iraq. Simpson Thacher's purported
investigation culminated in a 79-page report dated Dec. 11, 2019 --
less than one week after Ericsson pled guilty to FCPA violations in
Djibouti, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Kuwait. On March 1, 2022,
DOJ determined Ericsson breached the DPA by failing to make
subsequent disclosures to DOJ regarding the Company's dealings in
Iraq.
BRS' instant claims revolve around Ericsson's purported concealment
of, and subsequent statements regarding, the company's conduct in
Iraq. It deems these statements misrepresentations and alleges they
artificially inflated Ericsson's share price, and that when the
extent of Ericsson's misconduct in Iraq came to light, Ericsson's
share price "fell precipitously," thus harming the class of
investors BRS represents.
In particular, BRS alleges Ericsson and the Individual Defendants
misled investors regarding (1) the source of Ericsson's growth in
the Middle East; (2) the strength of Ericsson's compliance policies
and anti-corruption controls; and (3) the resolution of the DOJ and
SEC investigations and the risk of future enforcement actions.
First, the Defendants argue all the alleged misstatements cited in
the CAC are unactionable for one or both of the following reasons:
the statements were (1) immaterial as a matter of law or (2) not
false when made.
Judge Kuntz agrees. He finds that the Defendants did not delve into
specific details in their recitations of the sources of Ericsson's
growth, nor did they tout growth in Iraq in particular. As such,
their statements regarding the Company's growth in the Middle East
are too general to require further disclosure, and thus are not
materially misleading. He further finds that the Defendants'
compliance- and policy-related statements are unactionable both
because of their generality and because Defendants never promised
perfect compliance. As such, the alleged misstatements are
unactionable. Lastly, Judge Kuntz holds that each of the nine
alleged misstatements relating to Ericsson's entry into the DPA
with DOJ, Ericsson's purportedly enhanced post-DPA compliance
program, and the risk of additional FCPA investigations
unactionable for various reasons.
Second, the Defendants move to dismiss BRS's Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 claims on the grounds BRS fails to plead the Defendants acted
with scienter.
Judge Kuntz again agrees. He says even assessing all the
allegations holistically, BRS falls short of showing any Individual
Defendant acted with conscious recklessness. Its allegations do not
support a "powerful or cogent" inference that the Individual
Defendants "harbored thoughts of fraud." Therefore, scienter cannot
be imputed to Ericsson. As such, BRS' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
claims must also be dismissed for lack of scienter.
Third, BRS' failure to adequately plead either scienter or a
misstatement or omission is dispositive. Thus, Judge Kuntz need not
reach the issue of loss causation. Regardless, since loss causation
is premised on the assumption that a misstatement or omission
concealed something from the market, BRS cannot demonstrate loss
causation where it has failed to establish any such
misrepresentation.
Finally, BRS asserts a control person claim against the Individual
Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. To establish
control person liability, the plaintiff must allege: (1) a primary
violation by the controlled person, (2) control of the primary
violator by the defendant, and (3) that the defendant was, in some
meaningful sense, a culpable participant in the controlled person's
fraud. Because BRS has failed to establish a primary violation of
Section 10(b), its Section 20(a) claim necessarily fails and must
be dismissed.
For these reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in
its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motion at ECF No. 47 and to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yck57vhp from Leagle.com.
TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PA: Appeals Remand Ruling in Mohr
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 20, 2023
entered in the lawsuit entitled JOHNATHON MOHR, for himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRUSTEES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Case No. 2-23-cv-00731, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on Feb. 24, 2023.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant employs, agrees, and
conspires with Facebook/Meta Platforms to intercept communications
sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members in violation of
the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control
Act.
On March 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
to which the Defendant filed a response on April 10, 2023 opposing
the said motion.
On April 20, 2023, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order
signed by the Honorable Chad F. Kenney granting the Plaintiff's
motion to remand. The case was remanded to the Court of Common
Pleas for Philadelphia County. The Clerk of Court was directed to
mark the case closed for statistical purposes.
The appellate case is captioned as Johnathon Mohr v. Trustees of
the University of Pennsylvania, Case No. 23-1924, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May 24,
2023.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA is
represented by:
Mark S. Melodia, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
31 W 52nd Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3200
Plaintiff-Appellee JOHNATHON MOHR, for himself and others similarly
situated, is represented by:
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH
361 W Lancaster Avenue
One Haverford Centre
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
UNITED PARCEL: $1.375-Mil. Class Deal in Diaz Suit Wins Prelim. OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OSCAR DIAZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED PARCEL
SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00246-CDB (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California grants Plaintiffs
Oscar Diaz and Jace B. O'Guinn's unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of class and representative action settlement.
The Defendant, an Ohio Corporation, provides packaging and shipping
services worldwide. Diaz was employed by the Defendant from July
28, 1995 to present and has served as a Part-Time Operations
Supervisor/Part-Time Local Sort Supervisor ("PTS") since 2000.
O'Guinn was employed by the Defendant from July 2019 to December
2021 and served as a PTS. The Plaintiffs' job responsibilities
included unloading and sorting packages and facilitating the
unloading and sorting of packages from trucks.
Under the Defendant's policy, PTS employees are expected to work
5.5 hours per day and are paid weekly. PTS employees are guaranteed
27.5 hours of pay per week. However, the Plaintiffs allege PTS
employees regularly work in excess of 5.5 hours per day and 27.5
hours per week, especially during the Defendant's "peak season",
typically during the holiday season.
At some point, the Defendant established and promulgated a paid
vacation policy applicable to PTS employees like the Plaintiffs.
Under this policy, the number of vacation hours that a part-time
hourly paid employee receives for each vacation day is based on the
employee's average straight-time daily paid hours for the prior
Vacation Year. The Plaintiffs and the proposed class members allege
that the Defendant did not follow its written vacation policy, and
instead paid PTS employees vacation pay of only 27.5 hours of pay
for each regardless of how much they actually worked on average.
Based on this allegation, on Feb. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a
class action complaint against the Defendants. On April 19, 2022,
they filed a first amended complaint. On April 20, 2022, the
Plaintiffs filed a notice with the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA") of their intent to file a representative civil
action by an aggrieved employee pursuant to subdivisions (a) and
(f) of California Labor Code Section 2699.3. The LWDA did not
assume jurisdiction over the applicable penalty claims alleged. On
June 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to
add a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").
On Jan. 18, 2023, the parties engaged in mediation with the
assistance of mediator David A. Rotman, Esq. After the mediation
session, the parties reached a settlement in principle and executed
a Memorandum of Understanding. After additional weeks of
arms-length negotiations, they finalized the terms of the
settlement agreement. On March 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the
instant unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class and
representative action settlement.
According to the allegations of the operative Second Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs brought this action for (1) breach of
contract/vacation pay policy, (2) promissory estoppel, (3) failure
to pay accrued vacation pay/upon termination/waiting time
penalties, (4) failure to furnish timely and accurate wage
statements, (5) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), BUS. & PROF. CODE Section 17200 et seq., and (6) violation
of PAGA, Labor Code Section 2699, et seq.
The Plaintiffs argue the Defendant's potential liability for the
proposed class' direct unpaid vacation wages is $2,434,639.95. They
assert the Defendant's exposure for wage statement penalties is
$1,204,484.45. They also argue the Defendant's maximum potential
exposure for waiting time penalties is $13,128,751, before
accounting for the Defendant's defenses. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs estimate the Defendant's total exposure for PAGA
penalties is $4,212,103.35.
Pursuant to the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
and representative action settlement, the parties agree to a gross
settlement amount of $1,375,000 for the class defined as follows:
All current and former Part-Time Supervisors, including employees
with similar job titles and/or duties, who worked for Defendant
within the State of California during the Settlement Class Period,
defined as from April 19, 2018, and through the date of the
Preliminary Settlement Approval, and who at least once during the
Settlement Class Period took paid vacation under UPS's vacation
policy, and whose average straight-time daily paid hours exceeded
5.5 hours per day for the prior Vacation Year, but whose vacation
pay was limited to 5.5 hours per day, or 27.5 hours per week of
vacation in the Vacation Year.
The parties state the Settlement Class does not include any person
who submits a timely and valid opt-out request.
The Settlement Agreement defines the PAGA Settlement Members like
the class. Twenty-five percent of the civil PAGA penalties will be
paid to the PAGA Settlement Members. The PAGA Settlement Class
Period means the time period from April 20, 2021, to the date of
the Preliminary Settlement Approval.
The gross settlement fund will cover payments to class members with
additional compensation to the Plaintiffs as the class
representatives. In addition, the Settlement provides for payments
to the Class Counsel for attorney's fees and expenses, to the
proposed Settlement Administrator, and the LWDA.
Specifically, the Settlement provides for the following payments
from the gross settlement amount:
1. Class Representatives (Plaintiffs): The parties agree to
pay up to $6,500 from the Gross Settlement Amount to each Plaintiff
for their service as Class Representatives. Any portion of this
award not awarded to the Plaintiffs will be part of the Net
Settlement Amount, to be disturbed to Settlement Class Members.
2. Class Counsel: The parties agree to pay up to $458,333.33,
or one-third of the Settlement Amount, may be allocated to pay
attorney's fees, and up to $30,000 may be allocated to reimburse
the Class Counsel for litigation costs. Any portion of the
requested attorney's fees and costs not awarded to the Class
Counsel will be part of the net settlement amount.
3. LWDA: The parties agree to allocate $68,750 (or 5%) of the
Gross Settlement Amount under the PAGA. $51,562.50 (or 75%) of this
amount will be paid to the LWDA, and $17,187.50 (or 25%) to PAGA
Settlement Members.
4. Settlement Administrator: The parties selected Simpluris,
Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. The parties estimate, subject
to Court approval, that $38,400 will be deducted from the Gross
Settlement Agreement for Simpluris's administration of the
settlement.
After these payments, the Net Settlement Amount, estimated to be
$783,704.17, minus the employer's share of payroll taxes applicable
to the portion of the settlement payment attributable to the wages
will be paid out to the Settlement Class. Seventy-five percent of
the Net Settlement Amount will be distributed to the Class Members
who are also members of the Waiting Time Penalties Subclass based
on the number of workweeks they worked at any time from and after
April 19, 2019, through preliminary approval, in proportion to the
aggregate number of workweeks worked by all members of the Waiting
Time Penalties Subclass. The counsel for the Plaintiffs estimates
this subclass encompasses up to 3,286 former employees during the
relevant time period.
Class Members who do not opt out of the Settlement will receive
Individual Settlement Payments from the Net Settlement Amount, with
each Individual Settlement Amount determined by that class members'
share of Waiting Time Penalties for members of the Waiting Time
Penalties Sub-Class
The remaining 25% of the Net Settlement Amount will be distributed
to Participating Class Members on a pro-rata basis based upon the
number of workweeks during which the employee worked in proportion
to the aggregate number of workweeks by all Settlement Class
Members.
The Plaintiffs note this is a non-reversion cash Settlement and the
Class Members need not submit a claim form to receive a payment.
The Class Members who do not opt out of the Settlement will release
the Defendant from all claims that relate to the causes of action
asserted -- or those that could have been asserted in this action
based on the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs' operative Complaint.
Settlement checks will be valid and negotiable for 180 calendar
days. After that time, the Parties propose that the funds
represented by uncashed checks be tendered to the Controller of the
State of California to be held pursuant to the Unclaimed Property
Law, California Civil Code Section 1500 et seq., for the benefit of
those Class Members who did not cash their checks, until such time
that they claim their property, in compliance with Code of Civil
Procedure section 384(b), and subject to the Court's approval. The
Plaintiffs state "In no event will any of the funds revert to the
Defendant.
The Settlement Agreement defines the Released Parties as
"Defendant, its past and present officers, directors, shareholders,
employees, agents, principals, heirs, representatives, accountants,
auditors, consultants, and their respective successors and
predecessors in interest, subsidiaries, affiliates, parents and
attorneys."
The Plaintiffs' release includes a waiver of all rights under
California Civil Code Section 1542. They agree to fully, finally,
and forever settle and release any and all claims against the
Released Parties, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which
exist or may exist on behalf of or against the other at the time of
execution of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any and
all claims relating to or arising from their employment with the
Defendant.
The parties agreed class members would not be required to take any
action to receive their settlement shares. However, any class
member who wishes may file objections or elect not to participate
in the settlement. The proposed notice for class members explains
the procedures to object and/or request exclusion from the class.
Judge Baker finds the proposed class settlement is fair, adequate,
and reasonable. The factors set forth under Rule 23 and Ninth
Circuit precedent weigh in favor of preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement. Accordingly, he grants preliminary approval
of the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Class based upon the
terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Baker conditionally certifies and approves, for settlement
purposes only the following Settlement Class as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement: "All current and former Part-Time
Supervisors, including employees with similar job titles and/or
duties, who worked for Defendant within the State of California
during the Settlement Class Period, defined as from April 19, 2018,
and through the date of the Preliminary Settlement Approval, and
who at least once during the Settlement Class Period took paid
vacation under UPS's vacation policy, and whose average
straight-time daily paid hours exceeded 5.5 hours per day for the
prior Vacation Year, but whose vacation pay was limited to 5.5
hours per day, or 27.5 hours per week of vacation in the Vacation
Year."
The Plaintiffs will make the necessary changes identified by the
Court in the Notice to the Class Members attached to the Settlement
Agreement. The Court will approve the Notice to Class Members
attached to the Settlement Agreement with the requested corrections
implemented.
Judge Baker approves the procedure for Settlement Class Members to
request exclusion from the Settlement and to object to the
settlement as set forth in the Notice to Class Members. He directs
the mailing of the Notice to the Class Members by U.S. first class
mail to the Settlement Class Members in accordance with the
Implementation Schedule.
Judge Baker confirms (i) The Markham Law Firm and United Employees
Law Group as the Class Counsel; (ii) Oscar Diaz and Jace O'Guinn as
the Class Representatives; and (iii) Simpluris, Inc. as the
Settlement Administrator.
He approves the Class Representative incentive award for the
Plaintiffs preliminarily up to the amount of $6,500 each, subject
to a petition and review at the Final Approval and Fairness
Hearing. Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose the
request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness
Hearing
Judge Baker holds approval of the Plaintiffs' PAGA claim in
abeyance. The Plaintiffs may file a supplemental briefing regarding
the reasons for their proposed PAGA settlement amount.
Judge Baker orders the following Implementation Schedule for
further proceedings:
a. Preliminary Approval - May 24, 2023
b. Deadline for Defendant to Provide Class Information to
Settlement Administrator - June 23, 2023
c. Deadline to Mail Notice to Class Members - July 14, 2023
d. Deadline for Class Members to Postmark and/or Fax any
Request for Exclusion - Aug. 28, 2023
e. Deadline for Class Members to Postmark and/or Fax any
Objections - Aug. 28, 2023
f. Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement - Sept. 18, 2023
g. Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Class Counsel
Award - Sept. 18, 2023
h. Deadline for Class Counsel and/or Defendant's Counsel to
file a response to any objections - Oct. 18, 2023
i. Final Approval Hearing - Nov. 1, 2023, 10:30 a.m.
Pending further order of the Court, all proceedings in the matter
except those contemplated in the Preliminary Approval Order and in
the Settlement Agreement are stayed.
The Court expressly reserves the right to adjourn or continue the
Final Fairness Hearing from time to time without further notice to
members of the Settlement Class. It retains jurisdiction to
consider all further applications arising from or related to the
Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc5myx93 from Leagle.com.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Favell Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Iola Favell, Sue Zarnowski, Mariah Cummings, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
University of Southern California, 2U, Inc., Case No. 23STCV06899
was removed from the Superior Court of CA County of Los Angeles, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 3, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03389-SPG-MAR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The University of Southern California -- https://www.usc.edu/ -- is
a private research university in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
Kristen Marie Gelinas Simplicio, Esq.
Anna C. Haac, Esq.
TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (510) 254-6808
Fax: (202) 973-0950
Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com
ahaac@tzlegal.com
ahaac@tzlegal.com
- and -
Cameron Ryan Partovi, Esq.
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 254-6808
Fax: (202) 973-0950
Email: cpartovi@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
- and -
Eric Rothschild, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
1701 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 734-7495
Email: eric@defendstudents.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
Nalani Lin Crisologo, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 324-3409
Fax: (424) 204-9093
Email: mmallow@shb.com
mdcampbell@shb.com
ncrisologo@shb.com
- and -
Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
Elizabeth Lee Deeley
LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 391-0600
Fax: (415) 395-8095
Email: melanie.blunschi@lw.com
elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
- and -
Joseph David Axelrad, Esq.
LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 485-1234
Fax: (213) 891-8763
Email: joseph.axelrad@lw.com
- and -
Roman Martinez, Esq.
LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Phone: (202) 637-2200
Fax: (202) 637-2201
Email: roman.martinez@lw.com
VRA LLC: Roach Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pooling Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN ROACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAILGATERS, VRA LLC, and A-M-H-D LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01195-E (N.D. Tex., May 24, 2023)
seeks for damages and other legal and equitable relief from the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In or around November 2022, the Plaintiff began his employment for
Defendants as a bartender and continued it until March 2023. He
alleges that the Defendants have unlawful tip pooling and tip
retention practices whereby employees were deprived the federal
minimum wage in violation of the FLSA.
VRA, LLC is a Texas LLC is registered to do business in Texas,
doing business as Tailgaters Sports Bar & Grill.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry Taylor, Esq.
THE COCHRAN FIRM
3400 Carlisle Street
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 949-4420
Facsimile: (214) 651-4261
E-mail: Ltaylor@CochranTexas.com
- and -
Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
Alexander M. White, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7180
E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com
awhite@vkvlawyers.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Reports 245 Individual Cases Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Natura & Co Holding S.A.'s subsidiary, Avon Products has been named
a defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S.
courts, alleging that certain talc products the company sold in the
past were contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Many of these actions involve a number of
co-defendants, including manufacturers of cosmetics and
manufacturers of other products that, unlike the subsidiary Avon's
Products, were designed to contain asbestos. As of March 31, 2023,
there were 245 individual cases pending against the subsidiary Avon
International (during the three-month period ended March 31, 2023,
42 new cases were started and 25 were dismissed, settled or
otherwise resolved). In December 2022, a case, titled Chapman, et
al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 22STCV05968, resulted in an
adverse jury verdict after a trial, with the jury awarding the
plaintiffs a total of $36.0 million in compensatory damages and
$10.3 million in punitive damages against Avon subsidiary. The
Company believes it has strong grounds to seek the annulment of the
judgment in this case and in January 2023 began the process of
appealing the verdict seeking annulment in the trial court. On
March 1, 2023, following post-trial arguments, the trial court
issued a conditional order reducing the compensatory damages award
against Avon to US$29.3 million. Plaintiffs have challenged the
reduction of the award as to Avon and have asserted that the
reduction should only apply to Avon's co-defendant. The trial court
has resolved this issue in Plaintiffs’ favor and, once judgment
is entered, the case will proceed on appeal."
A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://shorturl.at/wD135
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Reports $15.3MM Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation, at March 31, 2023, has liability for
asbestos-related product liability claims and related legal costs
of $15.3 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually
evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related
liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence
of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the
mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its
recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases
pending against it, the status and results of broad-based
settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might
continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share
of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related
personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to
the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://shorturl.at/aquAK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Faces New Trial Over Talc Cancer Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters.com, reports that Johnson &
Johnson (JNJ.N) on Wednesday faced the first trial in almost two
years over claims that asbestos in its baby powder and other talc
products causes cancer, as it seeks to settle thousands of similar
cases in bankruptcy court.
Emory Hernandez, 24, says he developed mesothelioma, a deadly
cancer, in the tissue around his heart as a result of exposure to
J&J's talc products beginning when he was a baby. The company has
denied that its talc contains asbestos, which is linked to
mesothelioma, or causes cancer.
Joseph Satterley, a lawyer for Hernandez, urged jurors in Alameda
County, California court to reject the company's defenses and hold
it responsible for his client's illness.
"I can assure you the evidence will be very strong," Satterley
said. "Mesothelioma is a signature disease of asbestos."
Allison Brown, a lawyer for J&J, said in her opening statement that
the company went to great lengths to ensure that there were no
contaminants in its talc. She said that Hernandez's form of
mesothelioma was very rare, and more likely related to a family
history of heart disease and cancer.
"We have never wavered in our belief that talc is safe and does not
cause cancer," she said.
J&J subsidiary LTL Management in April filed for bankruptcy in
Trenton, New Jersey proposing to pay $8.9 billion to settle more
than 38,000 lawsuits, and prevent new cases from coming forward in
the future. It is the company's second attempt to resolve talc
claims in bankruptcy, after a federal appeals court rejected an
earlier bid.
Litigation has largely been halted during bankruptcy proceedings,
but U.S. Chief Bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan, who is overseeing
LTL's Chapter 11, allowed Hernandez's trial to go ahead because he
is only expected to live a short time.
Even if Hernandez wins, he will not be able to collect on the
judgment while the bankruptcy is ongoing.
Still, the outcome of the trial could influence whether other
plaintiffs decide to join in the proposed settlement.
Asbestos plaintiffs are seeking to have the latest bankruptcy
filing dismissed, and have argued it was brought in bad faith to
insulate the company from litigation.
J&J and LTL have argued bankruptcy delivers settlement payouts more
fairly, efficiently and equitably than a “lottery” offered by
trial courts, where some litigants get large awards and others
nothing.
The company said in bankruptcy court filings that the costs of its
talc-related verdicts, settlements and legal fees have soared to
about $4.5 billion.
*********
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 ***