/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230613.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 13, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 118 Headlines 2953 BROADWAY: Ye Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for Settlement A-1 QUALITY: Staying Conditional Certification Bid Briefing Sought ADVANCED MARKETING: Lamberth Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid AIR ACADEMY: Class Action Says Credit Union Assessed Improper Fees ALDI INC: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Fruit & Grain Cereal Bars ALDI USA INC: Lozano Files Suit in C.D. California ALI INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Holman Complaint Granted in Part AMAZON SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Herrera Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ANTHONY WILLS: Dalcollo Files Bid for Class Certification ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: S.D.N.Y. Dismissed Securities Class Action ARS PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Dresner Securities Suit ATLAS LITHIUM: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 1 AUTOANYTHING BRANDS: Wilson Files Suit in D. Oklahoma BANK OF AM: Plaintiffs' Bid to Seal Documents Temporarily Granted BARTON MALOW: Garcia Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Court Certifies Class in Sheet Metal Suit BELLAMI HAIR: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOSTON COLLEGE: Assented Bid to Certify Class Granted in Sellers BUREAU OF ALCOHOL: Fraser Files Bid for Class Certification CAMERON MITCHELL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 29 CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Beltran Suit Moved to LA County Super. Court CODEAGE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COMPASS MEDICAL: Unexpected Closure Prompts Class Action CORELOGIC CREDO: Court Won't Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Reply COSTCO WHOLESALE: Approval Hearing of Settlement Set for Sept. 11 DEVON ENERGY: Class Certification Bid Filing Due June 3, 2024 DIAMOND AGE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DILLIGAF USA: Kunkle Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DRESSER LLC: Response to Barnes Class Cert Bid Due June 19 DUNGARVIN OHIO: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 14, 2024 ELON MUSK: Sued Over Cryptocurrency's Manipulative Practices ERGATTA INC: Jones Files Suit in S.D. California FAST PACE: Hutchinson Suit Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement FCA US: D'Angelo Files Suit in S.D. California FLAGSTAR BANK: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Data Breach Suit FLORIDA: Sues Over Black Universities' Unfair State Funding FUNKO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 1 GENERAL MOTORS: D'Angelo Files Suit in S.D. California GENESCO INC: Powell Suit Removed to S.D. Florida GOOGLE LLC: Users to Receive $95 Each as Part of Privacy Suit Deal HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Caccavale Suit Seeks Class Certification HEY FAVOR: District Court Denies Meta's Bid to Sever Doe's Claims HONDA MOTOR: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 29 HTM TRANSPORTATION: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due Oct. 31 HUMANIGEN INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit IFIT INC: Jones Files Suit in S.D. California J.C. WESTERN SUPPLY: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOHN STAHLMAN: Loses Class Certification Bid JOSH STEIN: ACLUNC Seeks Certification of Defendant Class JOY MEDIA WORKS: Rhoadarmer Files Suit in D. Oklahoma KANSAS CITY LIFE: Seeks Partial Decertification of Class in Meek KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Hagins ERISA Suit LANDMARK RECOVERY: Court OK's Conditional Cert. Bid in Black LANDMARK RECOVERY: Seeks Stay on Conditional Certification Ruling LIVE VENTURES: Continues to Defend Sanchez Labor-Related Class Suit LOS ANGELES, CA: Application for Temporary Stay of Discovery Nixed LUMAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 25 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Settlement in Labor Class Suit MARYLAND: T.G. Files ADA Suit in D. Maryland MATCH GROUP: Block & Leviton Named Class Counsel in Bardaji Suit MDL 2573: Court Dismisses Nicholson Silver Fix Price Suit MDL 3078: 5 Suits Consolidated in Generac Products Liability Row MDL 3079: 18 Suits Consolidated in Tepezza Litigation Row MERCER UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit After 93,000 Impacted by Data Breach MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought MONEX DEPOSIT: Class Certification Briefing Deadlines Extended NATIONAL GRID: Bid for Summary Judgment OK'd in Nightingale Suit NEW AMERICAN: Martin Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class NIKE INC: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Derailment OAKLAND, CA: Facing Multiple Class Suits Over Alleged Data Breach ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Court Narrows Claims in Granados Class Suit PANERA LLC: Chan Suit Removed to C.D. California PARADIES SHOPS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Class Suit Claims PHILIP JAMES METSCHAN: Bankruptcy Court's Abstention Order Affirmed PINK ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Solar Panel Systems PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss Calderon Class Suit PUBLIX SUPER: S.D. Florida Dismisses Amended Valiente Class Suit QUOTE STORM: Bid to Dismiss Woodard TCPA Suit Held in Abeyance RACK ATTACK USA: Hollman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REBEL CREAMERY: Class Certification Bids Due April 4, 2024 RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Final Settlement Distribution Bid OK'd RISKIFIED LTD: S.D.N.Y Dismissed Class Suit Over IPO Disclosures SCALESGEAR.COM LLC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SEMI-TROPIC COOPERATIVE: Martinez Class Settlement Gets Final Nod SPENCER GIFTS LLC: Sierra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STEFAN LOBLE LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: June 27 Hearing on Class Cert Bid Sought SYSCO CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Class Suit Alleges TAIJI ORIENTAL: Yang Seeks FLSA Conditional Collective Status TAILORED LIVING CHOICES: Basham Suit Removed to N.D. California TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Certifies RICO Class Action TARGET CORP: May Face Class Suits From Investors, Says Elon Musk THRIFT SAVINGS: Participants File Class-Action Over System Update TIFCO INDUSTRIES: Alcala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phan Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification UNAPOLOGETIC FOODS: Completion of Class Cert Discovery Due Nov. 16 UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Earl Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Sims Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Valdez Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class US TOOL GRINDING: Dinesen Suit Removed to C.D. California VERTEX AEROSPACE: Tamakloe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WALMART INC: 8th Cir. Reverses Remand of Brunts Suit to State Court WELFARY LLC: Feroli Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma WINCO HOLDINGS: Dowell Suit Removed to C.D. California YOUTUBE LLC: Plaintiffs Lose Rule 23 Class Certification Bid ZAGE GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Conduct Class Certification ********* 2953 BROADWAY: Ye Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ye v. 2953 Broadway LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-04941-JHR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered an order designating the case to the Magistrate Judge for settlement purposes. The case is five years old. The parties will continue to litigate this case (including by briefing any motion for class certification that the Plaintiff intends to file) while they explore a possible settlement. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oHd3f1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com A-1 QUALITY: Staying Conditional Certification Bid Briefing Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY LONDON, et al., v. A-1 QUALITY LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00107-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying of briefing Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification pending the resolution of the appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. A1 offers a unique variety of labor services and solutions which include on-site workers and project teams at a fixed cost. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43cTkCW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Neal Shah, Esq. Brice C. Smallwood, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLP 3300 Great American Tower 301 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-6800 Facsimile: (513) 651-6981 E-mail: nshah@fbtlaw.com bsmallwood@fbtlaw.com ADVANCED MARKETING: Lamberth Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY LAMBERTH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ADVANCED MARKETING & PROCESSING, INC., d/b/a PROTECT MY CAR, Case No. 8:22-cv-02167-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her opposed motion for extension of time to file a motion for class certification. The Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order on January 5, 2023. The Court's Scheduling Order sets a deadline for moving for class certification of May 20, 2023. Specifically, as of the time of this filing, the Defendant has yet to respond to the Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories to the Defendant, has yet to respond to the Plaintiff's Second Request for Production to the Defendant and the Plaintiff has yet to receive third-party documents from the Defendant's payroll provider. Advanced Marketing is a company that operates in the Information Technology and Services industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C0g4Kr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Woodside, Esq. WOODSIDE LAW, P.A. 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 606-4872 Facsimile: (813) 333-9845 E-mail: Jason@woodsidelawpa.com AIR ACADEMY: Class Action Says Credit Union Assessed Improper Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kyla Asbury at wvrecord.com reports that in a class-action lawsuit, a woman says Air Academy Federal Credit Union improperly assessed overdraft fees. Lisa Solomon alleges the defendant has made substantial revenue in the amount of tens of millions of dollars with its improperly assessed fees, according to a complaint filed in Cabell Circuit Court. Solomon claims the defendant still assesses crippling $32 overdraft fees on many of its transactions and misrepresents its practices. The plaintiff claims despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card transactions at the time those transactions are authorized, the defendant later assesses overdraft fees on those same transactions when they settle days later into a negative balance. "Defendant maintains a running account balance, tracking funds consumers have for immediate use," the complaint states. "This running account balance is adjusted, in real-time, to account for debit card transactions at the precise instance they are made." The plaintiff claims despite reserving sufficient available funds to cover the transactions and keeping the held fund off-limits for other transactions, the defendant improperly charges overdraft fees on certain transactions. "Besides being deceptive . . . these practices breach contract promises made in Defendant's adhesion contracts, which fundamentally misconstrue and mislead consumers about the true nature of Defendant's processes and practices," the complaint states. "Defendant also exploits its contractual discretion by implementing these practices to gouge its customers." Solomon is seeking class certification and actual damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. She is represented by Rodney A. Smith and M. Alex Urban of Rod Smith Law PLLC in Charleston; Sophia G. Gold of KalielGold in Berkeley, Calif.; Jeffrey D. Kaliel of KalielGold in Washington, D.C.; Christopher D. Jennings and Tyler B. Ewigleben of Johnson Firm in Little Rock, Ark. The case is assigned to Circuit Judge Christopher Chiles. Cabell Circuit Court case number: 23-C-100.[GN] ALDI INC: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Fruit & Grain Cereal Bars --------------------------------------------------------------- tastingtable.com reports that if you shop for foods that have only natural ingredients and no synthetic flavoring agents, you may want to think twice about purchasing goods at Aldi. According to Newsweek, a class action lawsuit seeking roughly $10 million in damages alleges that the grocery store chain falsely labeled its fruit and grain bars "naturally flavored" and claimed they contained "no artificial flavors." The synthetic flavoring agent DL malic acid was found when tested in a lab. Athlete and health care administrator Deana Lozano is the lead plaintiff in the suit filed in the U.S. District Court of Central California., serving on behalf of all California consumers who purchased the Millville Fruit & Grain cereal bars. The product's printed list of ingredients included malic acid, an ingredient that can be produced naturally. However, as the lawsuit alleges, the company used DL malic acid, which is synthesized from benzene or butane; this, the plaintiff claims, effectively "misrepresented and deceived consumers regarding the flavoring in the products . . . for the purpose of enriching itself." Because studies have shown that consumers are willing to pay more for products that are billed as natural, the plaintiff says the company had a financial incentive for misrepresenting the product's ingredients. A sour taste Malic acid is a natural ingredient found in certain fruits and vegetables -- deriving its name from the Latin word for apple, "malus," from which it was first isolated -- and it has a tart flavoring with various uses in processed foods. The ingredient is most famously deployed to add sourness to products such as Peach Teas and "Salt & Vinegar" potato chips. While it can be derived naturally, the lawsuit claims that this process is costly and rarely used when large quantities are needed, such as for a product sold at a national grocery store chain. DL malic acid, the lawsuit explains, is derived from petrochemicals, specifically the "catalytic oxidation of benzene," as opposed to food products. This is not the first time that the discount grocery store has faced legal scrutiny in California. It has been under fire for several California Business & Professions Code violations, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act violations, and a breach of product warranties. Aldi is currently facing another class action suit, one regarding its oatmeal products. According to the Madison-St. Clair Record of Illinois resident Tiffany Hassard alleges the company inflates the number of half-cup servings on its 42 ounce oatmeal containers. Though the label says that roughly 30 servings are included, Hassard's suit says the number is closer to 26 and that Aldi knowingly bases their price on the larger number, bilking customers out of the difference. [GN] ALDI USA INC: Lozano Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldi USA Inc. The case is styled as Deana Lozano, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Aldi USA Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04174-FLA-SK (C.D. Cal., May 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. ALDI Inc. -- https://www.aldi.us/ -- operates as a supermarket. The Company offers groceries, meat, fresh produce, wine, beer, beverages, and other home products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Phone: (858) 414-7465 Fax: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com ALI INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Holman Complaint Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA HOLMAN and JAMES SMITH Plaintiffs v. ALI INDUSTRIES, LLC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-4133-NKL (W.D. Mo.), Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division, grants in part and denies in part Ali's motion to dismiss and denies as moot its motion to strike the request for a nationwide class. Ali moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the first amended complaint by Holman and new plaintiff Smith for failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b), 12(f), and 23 to dismiss or to strike the Plaintiffs' request for certification of a nationwide class for the breach of implied warranty claim. Ali is engaged in the manufacture, production, distribution, and sales of at least 20 different types of Gator-brand organic bonded abrasive wheels. When attached to power tools, the wheels are used to cut metal and concrete. Holman alleges that he purchased a 4 1/2" Gator wheel for $6 within the last five years. Smith alleges that he purchased a 6" Gator wheel for $5 in or soon before June 2021. Both allege that they purchased the wheels for personal, family, or household purposes, though they do not explain with any specificity what those purposes were. The Plaintiffs allege that the wheels they purchased are defective because they do not carry an expiration date, leading the reasonable consumer to believe that they have an unlimited shelf life when, in fact, after a shelf life of three years, the wheels are at risk of failing and becoming dangerous. They assert that the Gator wheels are worth less than the wheels they thought they were getting -- wheels that do not expire. The Plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves and two putative classes: (1) a "Nationwide Class" "consisting of all customers who purchased any of the wheels in the United States within the applicable statute of limitations" for breach of implied warranty; and (2) a "Missouri Sub-Class," consisting of a similarly defined set of Missouri residents, for violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and breach of implied warranty. Holman argues that both the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty should be dismissed because neither provided notice of the alleged breach prior to the filing of this action and also because any notice Smith gave was not provided within a reasonable time, and Holman has failed to allege when he discovered the alleged defect, so the Court cannot assess whether his notice was provided within a reasonable time. Judge Laughrey concludes that notice prior to the filing of a given complaint -- even an amended complaint -- is sufficient to meet the requirement of pre-suit notice based on the law in an analogous circumstance -- the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to the filing of certain types of actions. Ordinarily, failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not warrant dismissal with prejudice. So long as an administrative complaint may yet be timely filed, failure to exhaust administrative remedies results in dismissal without prejudice. So long as administrative remedies remain available, litigation may once again be commenced after those remedies have been exhausted. Judge Laughrey sees no reason why the same procedure should not apply in the instant case. Certainly, it is preferable to give notice of an alleged breach of warranty prior to initiating an action, but she says nothing in the statutory language suggests that failure to do so should forever bar such a claim. Whatever opportunity to cure that the counterparty had remains available even at the outset of the litigation. As Ali recognizes, it could have refunded the Plaintiffs' $5 or $6 purchase price -- and it has cited nothing that prevented it from doing so between the time when the Plaintiffs gave notice and when they filed the First Amended Complaint. Ali next argues that Smith's notice was deficient because it was not provided within a reasonable time after the Plaintiff discovered or should have discovered any breach. Smith's Gator wheel allegedly failed on June 6, 2021, more than a year-and-a-half before he gave notice on Feb. 15, 2023. Judge Laughrey holds that a 20-month delay in providing notice of a known defect is extraordinarily long, even for a lay consumer. She cannot envision any reasonable factfinder concluding that a 20-month delay in providing notice of an alleged defect in such a product is reasonable. She therefore holds that Smith's claim for breach of implied warranty is barred. Ali then argues that Holman's allegations concerning notice are defective as well because he does not specify when he learned of the alleged defect, and therefore it is not clear that he provided notice within a reasonable time. Judge Laughrey agrees that reasonable notice is a necessary element of a claim for breach of implied warranty, and failure to allege facts sufficient to show that that element has been satisfied requires dismissal for failure to state a claim. Holman has presented no information concerning when he became aware of the purported defect in the Gator wheel. Holman's failure to plead facts sufficient to allow the Court to evaluate the timeliness of the notice -- a critical element -- requires dismissal of the claim for breach of implied warranty, although, once again, without prejudice. Finally, Ali argues that both Plaintiffs' MMPA claims should be dismissed because neither has pleaded specific facts showing that he purchased the Gator wheels primarily for personal, family or household purposes, as the statute requires. Judge Laughrey finds that whether a commercial product was purchased for personal, family, or household purposes is a question of intent, and therefore a factual question, not a legal one. The assertion that a product was purchased for personal, family, or household purposes therefore is not the kind of "conclusory" statement that is insufficient under the pleading standard discussed in Iqbal. No more specific statement is required in the pleadings. Because the Court is dismissing both the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty -- Smith's with prejudice, and Holman's without prejudice -- Ali's motion to strike Holman's request for certification of a nationwide implied-warranty class is moot. For the reasons she discussed, Judge Laughrey grants in part and denies in part Ali's Motion to Dismiss. Smith's claim for breach of implied warranty is dismissed with prejudice. Holman's claim for breach of implied warranty is dismissed without prejudice. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim otherwise is denied. The motion to dismiss or to strike the request for a nationwide class is denied as moot. Holman may, within 21 days, amend the complaint once more to attempt to assert a claim for breach of implied warranty, but only if he can plead facts that show that he provided notice within a reasonable time after he became aware of the alleged defect in the Gator wheel he purchased. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtevrfta from Leagle.com. AMAZON SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN LEITCH, JERRELL SAMUELS, ABRIL VITTE-RUIZ, KAMIL ZUREK and THOMAS KAMARA on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AMAZON SERVICES COM LLC f/k/a AMAZON SERVICES COM INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06121-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for entry of an Order: 1. Allowing the case to proceed as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); 2. Approving the proposed Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit with Opportunity to Joinas well as the Consent to Become Party the Plaintiff; 3. Setting the Notice period at sixty (60) days from the date of the distribution of the Notice; 4. Allowing the distribution of the Notice; 5. Directing the Defendant to disclose in computer readable form the following information about each opt-in plaintiff: name, last known address, e-mail address, telephone number(s) and social security number; and 6. Setting other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Amazon Services provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43AnYGr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C. 17 State Street, Suite 820 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 267-2101 AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Herrera Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. HUD-L-001157-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02948. The Complaint pleads a single claim for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph Vento, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 218-5500 ANTHONY WILLS: Dalcollo Files Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dalcollo v. Warden Anthony Wills, Case No. 3:23-cv-00828-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qkp3n8 at no extra charge.[CC] ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: S.D.N.Y. Dismissed Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- mondaq.com reports that on May 19, 2023, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a solar equipment manufacturing company (the "Company") alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act (the "Securities Act"). Plymouth Cnty. Ret. Ass'n v. Array Techs., Inc., No. 21-cv-04390 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to warn investors about the impact rising steel prices would have on its business and misled investors about its business prospects in filings associated with the Company's October 2020 initial public offering ("IPO") and subsequent secondary public offerings ("SPOs"). The Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. The Company manufactures equipment that allows solar panels to move throughout the day to optimize exposure to the sun. The equipment is made mainly of steel. The Company conducted several public offerings in 2020 and 2021. In early 2020, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for steel fell sharply, causing steel mills to reduce production or cease operations. As the economy reopened in late 2020, demand for steel rebounded. However, months of decreased production and supply chain disruptions caused the price of steel to rise. Approximately six weeks after the close of an SPO in March 2021, the Company allegedly disclosed that steel costs made up roughly 50% of its cost of goods and advised that, because steel prices were not stabilizing, the Company would be withdrawing its prior guidance. Plaintiffs challenged several statements made in the Company's IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus, as well as statements made by Company executives in earnings calls and press releases, alleging the Company did not "timely disclos[e] the impact of the increases in steel and freight costs on the Company's margins and business prospects." Plaintiffs also alleged that the Company made false statements regarding the Company's ability to reduce costs through supply chain management. The Court first dismissed plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims, pointing to plaintiffs' failure to plead falsity with sufficient specificity under Rule 9(b). The Court emphasized that plaintiffs' generic allegations of falsity for at least fifteen of the statements failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s requirement that a plaintiff "demonstrate with specificity why and how" every statement is false or misleading. Although the Court found sufficient reason to dismiss the complaint on Rule 9(b) grounds alone, the Court also held that many of the Company's statements were non-actionable as "mere corporate puffery" or were true when they were made. For example, the Court noted that the alleged misstatements about the Company's ability to reduce costs were "backwards looking, describing [the Company]'s past performance with accuracy." According to the Court, plaintiffs' "argument collapses to merely a quarrel with [the Company's] inability to accurately predict the future. Such arguments do not pass muster as sufficient to sustain claims of fraud." Finally, the Court held that several of the Company's statements constituted forward-looking statements protected under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Although plaintiffs' Securities Act claims were not subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard, those claims also were dismissed because "the Court found that the statements were also insufficiently false or misleading or were otherwise protected." The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.[GN] ARS PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Dresner Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARS Pharmaceuticals 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 15, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Dresner securities class suit in the U.S. District for the Western District of Washington. On November 5, 2021, a securities class action complaint was filed against Silverback and certain of Silverback's former officers and directors in the U.S. District for the Western District of Washington, captioned Dresner v. Silverback Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01499 (the "Dresner Case"). The court has appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and plaintiff's counsel then filed the amended complaint on April 11, 2022. The amended complaint alleges that between December 3, 2020 and March 31, 2022, Silverback and certain of its officers and directors violated (1) Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"); and (2) Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making allegedly false and misleading statements in various SEC filings and press releases regarding the clinical and commercial prospects of its product candidate, SBT6050, which is now discontinued. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and interest, as well as attorneys' fees and other costs. Silverback and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 26, 2022 and lead plaintiff filed an opposition brief on July 11, 2022. On August 10, 2022, Silverback and the other defendants filed a reply brief. The court held a hearing on October 28, 2022 and issued an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice on November 4, 2022. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend and filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on December 5, 2022, which asserted Section 11 claims only with respect to Silverback's December 3, 2020 IPO and Section 10(b) claims during a shorter class period of March 29, 2021 through March 31, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC on January 2, 2023. Lead plaintiff filed an opposition brief on January 23, 2023, and defendants filed a reply brief January 27, 2023. On April 12, 2023, the court issued an order granting Defendants' motion and a judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs had 30 days from the date of the order to file a notice of appeal (if any). Regardless of the outcome, involvement in legal proceedings may have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these suits, and failure by the Company to obtain favorable resolutions could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, and financial condition. The Company's chances of success on the merits of either of these suits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated and as such the Company has not recorded a liability as of March 31, 2023. ARS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company discovers and develops novel and proprietary ImmunoTAC technology, which is designed to create potent therapeutic molecules that can be systemically administered to patients. ARS Pharmaceuticals serves customers worldwide. [BN] ATLAS LITHIUM: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Atlas Lithium Corporation f/k/a Brazil Minerals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATLX, BMIX) between March 25, 2022 and May 3, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 1, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased Atlas Lithium securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Atlas Lithium class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16825 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 1, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company overstated the success of its lithium mining and misrepresented the nature of its Brazilian mineral rights; (2) in connection with these misrepresentations, Atlas Lithium conducted deceptive promotions to artificially inflate the value of the Company's stock; (3) the foregoing conduct was designed to allow CEO Fogassa and other Company insiders to sell shares back into the market for a profit before the true nature of Atlas Lithium's business was revealed; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Atlas Lithium class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16825 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.[GN] AUTOANYTHING BRANDS: Wilson Files Suit in D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Autoanything Brands LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Autoanything Brands LLC DBA AUTOANYTHING, Case No. CJ-2023-3042 (D. Okla., May 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Civil Relief More Than $10,000: Class Action." AutoAnything -- https://www.autoanything.com/ -- is America's leading Truck Accessories and Auto Accessories site with Expert Help.[BN] BANK OF AM: Plaintiffs' Bid to Seal Documents Temporarily Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of Am. Corp., et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-01608-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an order granting temporarily the Plaintiffs' motion to seal. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 426. Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, and the Stipulation and Order Regarding Redaction and Sealing Process for Class Certification Briefing, the Plaintiffs The City of Philadelphia, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and the Board of Directors of the San Diego Association of Governments, Acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, on behalf of all parties, hereby seek leave to file by ECF the Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony, and supporting documents with certain confidential documents and information sealed or redacted. Bank of Am. is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OLmg0t at no extra charge.[CC] BARTON MALOW: Garcia Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA GARCIA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, et al., v. BARTON MALOW COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00590-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs Veronica Garcia, Sarai Garcia, and Veronica Sanchez submit a Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action, Identification of Potential Collective Action Members, and Approval of Notice to Potential Collective Action Members. Barton Malow provides construction management, design-build, program management, general contracting, technology, and equipment installation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MH3ogB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Nadas, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1201 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200K Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 899-2991 E-mail: rnadas@hfajustice.com - and - Simon Wiener, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 68 Harrison Avenue, Suite 604 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (202) 921-4567 E-mail: swiener@hfajustice.com - and - Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 Glebe Road, Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 665-9529 E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Court Certifies Class in Sheet Metal Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEET METAL WORKERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, et al., v. BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04737-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order certifying a class of: "All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bayer's publicly traded American Depositary Receipts from May 23, 2016, to July 6, 2020, inclusive;" Excluded from the Class are (1) the Defendants; (2) members of the immediate family of each of the Individual the Defendants; (3) any subsidiary or affiliate of Bayer, including its employee retirement and benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through such plan(s); (4) the directors and officers of Bayer during the Class Period, as well as the members of their immediate families; and (5) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any such excluded party. The Plaintiffs are appointed as class representatives, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is appointed as Class Counsel. A separate order will enter regarding the associated administrative motions to file materials under seal. A further case management conference is scheduled for June 15, 2023. The Plaintiffs in this securities action have moved for certification of a damages class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Defendants, in opposition, focus largely on the contention that the Plaintiffs have not established typicality or predominance because their acquisitions of Bayer American Depositary Receipts do not qualify as domestic transactions under federal securities law. The case arises out of averred misrepresentations made by Bayer and its executives in connection with the company’s acquisition of the agrochemical company Monsanto. In the Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), the Plaintiffs bring claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b); and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5. These claims are based on two categories of averred misrepresentations, only one of which (the Defendants' alleged statements concerning Bayer's due diligence efforts surrounding the Monsanto acquisition) was pleaded adequately and remains a viable theory of liability. The Plaintiffs are each pension funds that collectively purchased close to 600,000 Bayer American Depositary Receipts, or "ADRs." ADRs are "negotiable certificates issued by a United States depositary institution, typically banks, and they represent a beneficial interest in, but not legal title of, a specified number of shares of a non-United States company." Bayer is a German multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qdQBuy at no extra charge.[CC] BELLAMI HAIR: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bellami Hair, LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bellami Hair, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04498 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bellami Hair, LLC -- https://www.bellamihair.com/ -- retails personal care products. The Company offers hair colors, extensions, wings, lashes, blow dryers, styling tool sets, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BOSTON COLLEGE: Assented Bid to Certify Class Granted in Sellers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sellers, et al., v. Trustees of Boston College, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10912 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge William G. Young entered an order granting assented motion to certify class. Boston College is a private Jesuit research university in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.[CC] The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) involving breach of fiduciary duties. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL: Fraser Files Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN COREY FRASER, ET AL., v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, ET AL., Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-REP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the action as a Class Action. Bureau of Alcohol protects the public from crimes involving firearms, explosives, arson, and the diversion of tobacco products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43E6hGt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elliott M. Harding, Esq. HARDING COUNSEL, PLLC 1260 Clifden Greene, Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 962-8465 E-mail: Elliott@HardingCounsel.com CAMERON MITCHELL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 29 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDRA HAASE, v. CAMERON MITCHELL RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01316-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The parties shall exchange initial July 21, 2023 disclosures by: -- Any motion to amend the pleadings June 27, 2023 or to join additional parties shall be filed by: -- The motion for class certification Dec. 29, 2023 shall be filed by: This is a tip credit case. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant inappropriately took advantage of the tip credit when it required the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to spend more than 20% of their workweek performing tip supporting side work and other work not related to the tipped occupation. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and others similarly situated less than minimum wage and improperly relied on the tip credit to meet the Defendant's minimum wage obligation. The Plaintiff contends that such actions violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (Count I) and Article II, Section 34a of the Ohio Constitution (Count II). The Defendant denies each of the Plaintiff's claims and asserts that it properly paid the Plaintiff and other servers in accordance with applicable law. The Plaintiff brings her two claims as a class and collective action and has demanded a jury. Cameron Mitchell owns and operates restaurants. The Company offers lunch, dinner, wine, and other food services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43wc6F9 at no extra charge.[CC] CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Beltran Suit Moved to LA County Super. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California remands the case, STEVEN BELTRAN AND LISA REINGOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 23-02626 DSF (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs Beltran and Reingold move to remand the action to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Defendants Cedars-Sinai Health System and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (collectively Cedars-Sinai) oppose. On April 26, 2023, the Court issued an order approving the parties' Stipulation Regarding Briefing and Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Order). The parties stipulated to adopting briefings from Browne v. Cedars-Sinai Health System, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01551 and giving them effect in this action for purposes of the briefing on, and the Court's adjudication of, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. Judge Fischer deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. On Feb. 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for damages arising from the Defendants' implementation of software code, embedded in websites and apps maintained and controlled by the Defendants, which was created for the purpose of capturing, storing, and sharing the personal data of Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers. The Plaintiffs allege that Cedars-Sinai knowingly implemented and configured tracking code, such as the Facebook Pixel, to disclose the identities and communications of its patients to Facebook and third parties. They allege that Cedars-Sinai implemented the tracking code with the knowledge and intent to specifically identify their patients to Facebook and third parties alongside their protected health information and geographic location, in direct and patent violation and disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) breach of implied contract; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) breach of duty; (7) violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code Sections 630, et seq.; (8) violation of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 56.10; (9) invasion of privacy in violation of the California Constitution; and (10) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. On April 7, 2023, Cedars-Sinai removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), the federal officer removal statute. Cedars-Sinai asserts that over the past two decades, the federal government has engaged in an extensive effort to build a nationwide health information technology infrastructure, and the case challenges the legitimacy of actions Cedars-Sinai has taken in connection with pursuing that directive. It contends that it has dutifully assisted and followed the federal government's direction as part of a public-private initiative to develop a nationwide infrastructure for health information technology, and in doing so, has acted within the penumbra of federal action and office. It argues that it qualifies as a "person" under the statute and has acted under a federal officer. The Plaintiffs argue that the case should be remanded because Cedars-Sinai has not met its burden of establishing that its actions were taken pursuant to a federal officer's directions. They argue that Cedars-Sinai is not acting on behalf of a federal officer in a manner akin to an agency relationship because merely performing some functions that a government agency controls is not enough to transform a private entity into a federal officer. Judge Fischer states that a private firm's compliance (or noncompliance) with federal laws, rules, and regulations does not by itself fall within the scope of the statutory phrase 'acting under' a federal 'official.' And that is so even if the regulation is highly detailed and even if the private firm's activities are highly supervised and monitored. The directions Cedars-Sinai points to are general regulations and public directives regarding the development of health information technology and an electronic health records infrastructure. Therefore, removal is not justified by federal officer jurisdiction. For the reasons he stated, Judge Fischer grants the motion to remand. He remands the case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/52ju7whw from Leagle.com. CODEAGE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Codeage, LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Codeage, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04502 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Codeage -- https://www.codeage.com/ -- is a leading nutritional brand offering a large choice of the best supplements such as multi collagen proteins, vitamins, multivitamins, liposomal and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com COMPASS MEDICAL: Unexpected Closure Prompts Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Dave Muoio at fiercehealthcare.com reports that a New England provider's abrupt closure blindsided its patients and employees and has prompted class-action litigation alleging negligence. East Bridgewater, Massachusetts-based Compass Medical served roughly 70,000 patients across six locations south of Boston. The for-profit offered primary care, urgent care and specialty care lines including cardiology and pulmonary medicine. May 31, the company shuttered its facilities with notices on the doors that the location was "temporarily closed," according to news reports and a class-action lawsuit filed June 2 by a Massachusetts resident on behalf of other affected patients. Alongside the closure, Compass removed most of its website and posted a statement informing patients of "our imminent plan to close our practices." "After a steady stream of challenges, we were ultimately forced to make the devastating decision to close all offices of Compass Medical PC. effective immediately," the company wrote alongside messages directing patients with urgent medical attention to one of several local providers. Compass also said it would be updating its website with information for patients hoping to continue care with their primary care clinician and made a form available for requesting medical records. The "steady stream of challenges" could refer to the rising workforce and supply costs providers have shouldered in recent years, which has left many organizations operating at a loss. It could also include the $16.4 million penalty a jury ordered Compass to pay to its former business partner Steward Medical Group -- a Boston-based, nine-state, 1,700-physician multispecialty practice group affiliated with Steward Health Care -- for contract breaches and intentional misrepresentation back in November. That legal battle began when Compass unsuccessfully sued Steward for over $80 million in damages in 2017. A Steward spokesperson told a local ABC affiliate that the company had yet to receive any of that claim "and has nothing to do with [Compass] going bankrupt." A former employee posted videos on Twitter saying that she and others were caught off guard by the closure and that benefits such as insurance coverage were not being extended. Compass employed more than 400 people across its locations. Richard Callanan, the patient who filed the class-action lawsuit, alleged that Compass would have known it was shutting down "long before" May 31 and had a responsibility to give customers advanced notice that their medical care facilities would no longer be available. "Compass deprived Plaintiff and the members of the putative class of the advance opportunity to make adequate arrangements for continuity of their medical care and future care and treatment planning with non-Compass medical providers and facilities," Callanan wrote in his complaint (PDF). "Furthermore, Compass failed to provide any reasonable notice, guidance, assistance or transparency to its patients/customers inter alia as to how to find a new caregiver, how to continue with treatment, how to fill or re-fill prescriptions and how to access their medical records to facilitate future care." Callanan's complaint alleges seven counts that include negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation and fraud. He is seeking an order determining Compass' liability "for damages caused by its unlawful and tortious acts and omissions" as well as relief for those damages and an enjoinment order, according to the complaint. In a June 3 statement, Bruce Weinstein, M.D., president of Compass' board of directors, said the closure "became a necessity . . . when our plan to continue operations collapsed" on May 26 -- five days before the doors were locked and a week before employees logged their final day on the job. He said the company has helped providers find other locations to practice and cited career resources provided to other employees. Steward, which operates hospitals in the area, has also started its own phone line for Compass patients and is holding job fairs for those who lost their jobs.[GN] CORELOGIC CREDO: Court Won't Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO A. FERNANDEZ, v. CORELOGIC CREDO, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01262-JM-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller entered an order on application for leave to file expedited motion to strike portions of plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification and recently submitted expert reports. Accordingly, the Defendant's Application for Leave to File Expedited Motion to Strike Portions of the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Recently Submitted Expert Reports is denied as moot in so far as it relates to the filing of an additional document beyond the application itself. On May 18, 2023, the Defendant filed an Application for Leave to File Expedited Motion to Strike Portions of the Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Recently Submitted Expert Reports. In a nutshell, the Defendant seeks to strike certain evidence and arguments presented for the first time in the Plaintiff's reply brief in support of his motion for class certification or, in the alternative, the Defendant seeks leave to file a sur-reply regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant dedicates 11-pages of its application to setting forth the issues it has with the expert reports the Plaintiff submitted and identifies, with pin cites, the places of concern. CoreLogic Credco is a third-party consumer credit reporting agency that provides merged credit reports to a number of mortgage lenders. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oBLjsq at no extra charge.[CC] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Approval Hearing of Settlement Set for Sept. 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending May 7, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2023, that the settlement in the Edwards class suit is set for final court approval hearing on September 11, 2023. In February 2021, a former employee filed a class action against the Company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated employees, and for unfair business practices. Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00716: C.D. Cal.). In May 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted with leave to amend. In June 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion in part in July 2021 with leave to amend. In August 2021, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and filed a separate representative action under PAGA asserting the same Labor Code claims and seeking civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company filed an answer to the second amended class action complaint, denying the material allegations. The Company also filed an answer to the PAGA representative action, denying the material allegations. On September 27, 2022, the parties reached a settlement for an immaterial amount. A hearing for final court approval is set for September 11, 2023. Costco Wholesale Corporation -- https://www.costco.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box retail stores.[BN] DEVON ENERGY: Class Certification Bid Filing Due June 3, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAKE ENERGY, LLC, and WAKE OPERATING, LLC, v. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, LP, Case No. 5:21-cv-00352-PRW (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Patrick R. Wyrick entered an order lifting the stay and resetting the deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Deadline to file all Motions to June 30, 2023 Amend Pleadings: Class-certification fact-discovery Jan. 1, 2024 Cutoff: The Plaintiffs to submit its class- Mar. 1, 2024 certification expert report to the Defendant: The Defendant to submit its class- Apr. 2, 2024 certification expert report to the Plaintiffs: The Plaintiff's class-certification May 4, 2024 Expert deposition not later than The Defendant's class-certification May 17, 2024 Expert deposition not later than: Class Certification Motion filed with June 3, 2024 all supporting evidence: Class Certification Response filed with July 3, 2024 all supporting evidence: Class Certification Reply filed with July 18, 2024 any rebuttal evidence: Class Certification Hearing: To be set by the Court Devon Energy provides oil and natural gas exploration and production services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43wdUxZ at no extra charge.[CC] DIAMOND AGE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Age, LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Diamond Age, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04506-ALC (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Diamond Age -- https://www.diamondage3d.com/ -- is automating new home construction for the production housing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com DILLIGAF USA: Kunkle Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dilligaf, USA, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Kunkle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dilligaf, USA, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04484 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dilligaf -- https://dilligafusa.com/ -- is a clothing line for people who want to express their sense of freedom, feel happy and vindicated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com DRESSER LLC: Response to Barnes Class Cert Bid Due June 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barnes, et al., v. Dresser LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00024 (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge David C. Joseph entered an order that response to motion to certify class of Property-Related Claims is due on or before June 19, 2023. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land. Dresser designs, manufactures, and markets energy infrastructure products and services. The Company offers products such as valves, instruments, meters, natural gas fueled engines, retail fuel dispensers, and related control systems.[CC] DUNGARVIN OHIO: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 14, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORA DUVALL, et al., v. DUNGARVIN OHIO, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03372-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend the pleadings Nov. 17, 2023 or to join additional parties shall be filed by: -- The motion for class certification March 14, 2024 shall be filed by: -- All discovery shall be completed by: Feb. 13, 2024 -- Any dispositive motions shall be March 14, 2024 filed by: Dungarvin provides a variety of supports to children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WDvcqS at no extra charge.[CC] ELON MUSK: Sued Over Cryptocurrency's Manipulative Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Asmakov of Yahoo! Finance reports that the ongoing lawsuit against Elon Musk over his Dogecoin dealings has taken another turn. The group of DOGE investors has now accused the billionaire of engaging in manipulative practices that influenced the price of the popular meme cryptocurrency. In an amended filing made on May 31 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the investors contend that Musk leveraged his substantial social media following on Twitter and his public appearances, such as hosting NBC's Saturday Night Live in May 2021, to profit from DOGE trades through what they describe as "transparent cryptocurrency market manipulation." The filing lists a long string of other examples, which the plaintiffs claim to be instances of market manipulation. These include Musk taking to Twitter in May 2021 to share a meme of two sequential screenshots from the film The Matrix, one of actor Keanu Reeves as the character Neo, labeled, "What are you trying to tell me, that I can make a lot of money with Dogecoin?" and another of actor Laurence Fishburne as the character Morpheus but with a cartoon Shiba Inu superimposed over his face and text reading, "No Neo. I'm trying to tell you that Dogecoin is money." The complaint also alleges that Musk -- the self-proclaimed "Dogefather" and "Dogecoin CEO" -- was "unjustly enriched by billions of dollars" through "undisclosed sales of Dogecoin based on insider information." Per the filing, Musk allegedly caused the price of DOGE to spike 30% after replacing the Twitter blue bird logo with the Dogecoin Shiba Inu logo for three days in April this year. DOGE investors claim securities fraud While seeking the court's permission to modify their complaint to include allegations of Musk's involvement in insider trading of DOGE, the investors also reiterated their assertion that the meme coin qualifies as a security under the standards set by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "This is a securities fraud class action arising from a deliberate course of carnival barking market manipulation and insider trading by the world's richest man Elon Musk, who hijacked an emergent pop-culture phenomenon to cross-promote himself and his companies, and to pad his obscene fortune, preying on the earnest hopes of vulnerable Americans, including war veterans, blue-collar workers, and the elderly," reads the filing. Elon Musk, Tesla and SpaceX Hit With $258 Billion Dogecoin Lawsuit The initial $258 billion class action lawsuit was filed in June 2022 and has seen two amendments since then. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO sought to dismiss the lawsuit in March this year, with the billionaire's lawyers saying that "this court should put a stop to plaintiffs' fantasy and dismiss the complaint." "There is nothing unlawful about tweeting words of support for, or funny pictures about, a legitimate cryptocurrency that continues to hold a market cap of nearly $10 billion," Musk's lawyers said at the time. They also rejected the investors' claim that Dogecoin qualified as a security since the plaintiffs' claim rested "on a mere rhetoric." [GN] ERGATTA INC: Jones Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ergatta, Inc. The case is styled as Julio Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ergatta, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00983-LL-AHG (S.D. Cal., May 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Ergatta -- https://ergatta.com/ -- is a game-based connected rowing machine designed for your living room.[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 FAST PACE: Hutchinson Suit Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTY HUTCHINSON, CHRISTINA COURTNEY, and KAREN HARRIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FAST PACE MEDICAL CLINIC PLLC d/b/a FAST PACE HEALTH, Case No. 3:22-cv-00511 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement, and for preliminary certification of class and collective action. Fast Pace provides medical services. The Hospital offers treatment for a wide range of illnesses, injuries, and common conditions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C34ui0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com - and - Justin G. Day, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (856) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: jday@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryan P. Durham, Esq. BOSTON, HOLT & DURHAM, PLLC 235 Waterloo St. Lawrenceburg, TN 38464 Telephone: (931) 201-9452 E-mail: rdurham@bhsdlaw.com - and - Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Tyler Z. Zmick, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Telephone: (312) 499-6700 E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com tzzmick@duanemorris.com FCA US: D'Angelo Files Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US, LLC. The case is styled as Noelle D'Angelo, Anthony D'Angelo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US, LLC doing business as: Dodge, Case No. 3:23-cv-00982-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive service parts and accessories.[BN] The 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 FLAGSTAR BANK: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE FLAGSTAR DECEMBER 2021 DATA SECURITY INCIDENT LITIGATION, Case No. 22-cv-11385 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Shalina D. Kumar of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, designates the Yanchunis Slate as the interim co-lead class counsel and co-chairs of the Plaintiff Executive Committee. The putative class action, the consolidation of some 20 separate actions filed by alleged victims of a December 2021 data breach of Flagstar Bank FSB, is now before the Court on several competing motions to appoint interim lead counsel. The counsel for Philip Angus, John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan, along with counsel for John Smith, Norman E. Siegel of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, moves to serve as interim co-lead counsel for the putative class (Yanchunis Slate). The counsel for Paulette Kincaid, Christopher McKenney, and Mark Wiedder, the counsel for Thomas Pike and Andrew Hawkins, the counsel for Danny Roll, the counsel for Michael McCarthy, and the counsel for Allie McLaughlin filed declarations in support of appointing the Yanchunis Slate. The counsel for Chris Key and Alexis and George Cousino, E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, P.C., along with Kessler Topaz Metzler & Check, LLP and Keller Rohrback LLP, moves to serve as interim co-lead counsel, as well (Miller Slate). The counsel for Scott Temple and Thomas Cowan, Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C., moves to be appointed as interim lead counsel or co-counsel. Teh counsel for Nathan Silva, Michael Reese of Reese LLP, requests that the Court selects one member of each slate plus him to serve as interim co-lead counsel. The counsel for Temple, Cowan, and Rafael Hernandez moves for the creation of a Plaintiff Executive Committee (PEC) and to appoint Rachel K. Tack of Zimmerman Reed LLP to serve as a PEC member. The counsel for Everett Turner, Danielle L. Perry of Mason LLP, moves to be appointed as interim co-lead counsel, or, alternatively, as a member of the PEC. The counsel for Scott Myers, Jamisen A. Etzel of Lynch Carpenter LLP, moves for an appointment to a leadership position. The Yanchunis Slate requests that either Powell Miller or David Fink of Fink Bressack, both local counsel with significant class action experience, be appointed to serve in some capacity. David Fink and his co-counsel for McLaughlin ask that he be named as liaison counsel to the Yanchunis Slate. Having considered the various competing motions to appoint interim lead counsel, Judge Kumar is persuaded that the Yanchunis Slate is best able to represent the interests of the putative class. She finds that the Yanchunis Slate has undertaken an exhaustive investigation of the Flagstar Data Breach, utilizing the services of former FBI agents and a cyber consultant. In addition, the Yanchunis Slate served as lead, co-lead, or committee member counsel in at least seven high profile customer data breach class actions over the past eight years. The Yanchunis Slate's extensive experience with this type of class action make it the most capable and efficient choice for interim counsel. Because it also has and can continue to commit considerable resources to representing the putative class, Judge Kumar finds that the Yanchunis Slate is best able to represent the interests of the putative class. Judge Kumar also finds that appointing a small PEC will provide support to the interim co-lead counsel, maximize efficiency of the litigation, and supply added diversity in leadership. Accordingly, the motions to appoint interim co-lead counsel are granted and the competing motions to appoint interim lead counsel are denied. The motion for the creation of PEC is granted. Judge Kumar designates the Yanchunis Slate as the interim co-lead class counsel and co-chairs of the PEC: (i) John Yanchunis Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com; and (ii) Norman E. Siegel Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, Missouri 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com Judge Kumar vests Yanchunis and Siegel, as the Interim Co-Lead Counsel, with the authority and duty to coordinate and oversee the PEC responsibilities; to schedule PEC meetings and keep minutes or transcripts of these meetings; to appear at periodic Court-noticed status conferences and hearings; to sign and file all pleadings relating to all actions; and to bind the PEC in scheduling settlement discussions and discovery, setting agendas, entering into stipulations, and in other necessary interactions with the settlement master (if any), defense counsel, and the Court. They also will perform other necessary PEC administrative and logistical functions and carry out any other duty as the Court may order. Judge Kumar designates the following counsel as members of the PEC: E. Powell Miller Rachel K. Tack The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Zimmerman Reed LLP 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 1100 IDS Center Rochester, Michigan 48307 80 South 8th Street Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: rachel.tack@zimmermanreed.com; (ii) Danielle L. Perry Mason LLP Michael Reese 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Reese LLP Suite 640 100 W. 93rd Street, 16th Floor Washington, District of Columbia New York, New York 10025 20015 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: mreese@reesellp.com Email: dperry@masonllp.com; (iii) Jamisen A. Etzel Lynch Carpenter LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Email: jamisen@lcllp.com. The PEC is responsible for creating its own structure, including establishing subcommittees, subject to the Court's approval. The Court recognizes that changes to the PEC's organization may be necessary as the litigation progresses and new details emerge. Judge Kumar designates the following counsel as the Plaintiffs' Interim Liaison Counsel: David H. Fink, Fink Bressack PLLC 38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 Email: dfink@finkbressack.com The appointments of Interim Co-Lead and the Liaison Counsel and the PEC are personal to the individual attorney appointed. Although the Court has considered PEC members' resources and expects they will draw upon their firms and co-counsel to assist them with their duties, each appointed counsel is personally responsible for his or her duties. The Court may add or replace members upon request from the PEC, or on its own motion, if and as circumstances warrant. It is intended and expected by the Court that, as to all matters common to the consolidated cases, and to the fullest extent consistent with the independent fiduciary obligations owed by any and all Plaintiffs' counsel to their clients and any putative class, pretrial proceedings will be conducted by and through the PEC. The Court will make the final determination as to the compensation and reimbursement of the Plaintiffs' counsel. All timekeepers carrying out work for the Plaintiffs' common benefit, including PEC members, who may look to any common fund or agreement for reimbursement or compensation will maintain detailed and contemporaneous time records. The Court will provide further instruction and details in a subsequent order. The Court intends to issue an order establishing specific guidelines and rules for work done and expenses incurred for the common benefit of all Plaintiffs in this consolidated action. It invites Interim Co-Lead Counsel, after consultation with other PEC members and other co-counsel as may be appropriate, to submit a proposed order establishing a protocol for common benefit work and expenses no later than 30 days from the date of this order. If interim co-lead counsel does not submit a proposed order, the Court will enter its own. The Interim Co-Lead Counsel will file a consolidated amended complaint inclusive of all Plaintiffs in this consolidated action no later than 30 days from the date of Judge Kumar's order. The consolidated amended complaint will be the operative complaint and will supersede all complaints filed in any of the underlying individual actions. Defendant will respond to the consolidated amended complaint no later than 30 days after it is filed. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yeat74n9 from Leagle.com. FLORIDA: Sues Over Black Universities' Unfair State Funding ----------------------------------------------------------- Char Adams at nbcnews.com reports that a Florida judge, for now, is allowing a class-action lawsuit to go forward that accuses the state of discriminating against a historically Black university while prioritizing its largest public university, which is predominantly white. Judge Robert L. Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida heard oral arguments in the first court test for a class-action lawsuit filed in September. He dismissed the state's request to dismiss the suit, but did ask for revisions. The six students at Florida A&M who filed the suit claim that the University of Florida receives a larger state appropriation per student than A&M. The complaint says that over 33 years, from 1987 to 2020, that shortfall amounted to approximately $1.3 billion, though the two schools share the distinction of being the state's only two public land-grant colleges. A 2022 study by Forbes found that Florida A&M (FAMU) received $2,600 less per student than the University of Florida in 2020. And the school relies more on state funding than its white counterpart, according to Forbes. Last year, The New York Times reported that FAMU's football players, the Rattlers, must contend with poor practice equipment and overwhelmed staff spread thin while advising students. Among other complaints, the suit also accuses the state of allowing Florida State University, also in Tallahassee, to duplicate more than 40 FAMU programs, making it difficult for FAMU to attract potential students through its fields of study. "There's the failure to fund the school in proportion to traditionally white students and allow FAMU to essentially establish its own identity," civil rights attorney Josh Dubin, who is representing the plaintiffs, said in an interview. Dubin added that FAMU's facilities aren't well-maintained because of a lack of funding. "We're talking about segregating African American students from white students," Dubin said. "This obviously has racism at its core." The plaintiffs are demanding that the state commit to equity in its support of HBCUs, and are seeking injunctive relief under myriad laws, including Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in federally funded programs. Hinkle's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about hearing. Dubin said that Hinkle, while not dismissing the case, did ask attorneys to amend the suit for clarity. The suit names the state of Florida; the State University System's board of governors and its chancellor, Ray Rodrigues; the State Board of Education and its commissioner, Manny Diaz Jr.; and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. Spokespeople for the Board of Governors and the State Board of Education declined to comment on the pending litigation. Neither DeSantis' office nor state officials immediately responded to a request for comment from NBC News. The hearing came just weeks after the NAACP issued a travel advisory for Florida over DeSantis' "aggressive attempts to erase Black history and to restrict diversity, equity and inclusion programs" in the state's schools, the organization said in a statement. The DeSantis administration in January blocked an Advanced Placement course in African American studies from being offered in Florida high schools. HBCUs were founded to give Black students an opportunity for a higher education — and, in turn, upward mobility — when most colleges were segregated. But decades of underfunding, exacerbated by national economic downturns, have led to several crises for the schools, like lack of resources and housing issues. "Our school has always made a little go a long way, but we shouldn't have to," plaintiff Britney Denton, a first-year doctoral student at FAMU, said, according to Businesswire. "There are bright and determined people here who deserve the same level of support and quality of resources as FSU next door or any other state school in Florida."[GN] FUNKO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Funko, Inc. ("Funko" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FNKO). The lawsuit alleges Funko made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts including: (a) Funko was experiencing significantly larger delays in implementing its ERP software than it was disclosing to investors; (b) having moved into a new warehouse without functioning ERP software in place would lead to dramatically higher costs and poorer inventory management practices; and (c) Funko's inability to efficiently operate the new distribution center would have a substantial, undisclosed impact on the Company's EBITDA margin. If you bought shares of Funko between May 6, 2022 and March 1, 2023, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Marshall Dees, Esq. at mdees@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq. at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website www.holzerlaw.com/case/funko/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is August 1, 2023. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: D'Angelo Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The General Motors Company. The case is styled as Noelle D'Angelo, Anthony D'Angelo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The General Motors Company doing business as: Chevrolet, Case No. 3:23-cv-00985-WQH-DEB (S.D. Cal., May 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[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 GENESCO INC: Powell Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kristen Powell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENESCO, INC. d/b/a JOURNEYS, Case No. CACE-23-013278 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-61012-XXXX. The State Court Action alleges two causes of action against Genesco on behalf of Plaintiff herself and two different proposed classes: Genesco made telephone solicitations to Plaintiff and national class members in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"); and Genesco made telephone solicitations to Plaintiff and Florida class members in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Ave., Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801-3432 Phone: 407.649.4000 Facsimile: 407.841.0168 Email: ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com - and - Rand L. McClellan, Esq. Paul M. M. Willison, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 Civic Center Dr., Suite 1200 Columbus, OH 43215-4138 Phone: 614.228.1541 Facsimile: 614.462.2616 Email: rmcclellan@bakerlaw.com pwillison@bakerlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Users to Receive $95 Each as Part of Privacy Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ abc7chicago.com reports that Illinois residents who filed a claim to receive a portion of a $100 million settlement that Google agreed to last year in a biometric data privacy class-action lawsuit will get around $95 each. Anyone who appeared in a photograph on Google Photos between May 1, 2015, and April 25, 2022, while they were an Illinois resident was invited to fill out a claim form. The deadline to submit a claim was Sept. 4, 2022. More than 687,000 people filed valid claims, according to Cook County court documents, resulting in payouts of between $95 and $96. The class-action suit stemmed from the company's use of proprietary facial recognition technology in Google Photos, which analyzes photographs and creates and stores templates of a user's face "all without ever informing anyone of this practice," according to the complaint, which was filed in 2016. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act - enacted in 2008 - makes it unlawful for a company to collect a customer's biometric identifiers without first informing the subject, the complaint states. A judge ordered final approval of the settlement on Sept. 28, 2022, according to court documents. Google did not admit any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle the case. Attorneys originally estimated payouts would be between $200 and $400 after the first round of verification found a total of about 420,000 valid claims, according to court documents. But the average payout was reduced after a second round of verification this year increased the number of claimants by 159,085. In 2020, more than 1.4 million Illinois Facebook users filed valid claims in another class-action lawsuit, which said the company violated Illinois privacy law with a feature that suggested users tag people in their posted photos. Each claimant received about $400 in that case. [GN] HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Caccavale Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caccavale, et. al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company a/k/a HP Inc. et. al., Case No. e 2:20-cv-00974-GRB-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting pre-motion conference in connection with the anticipated motion for class certification, appointment of their counsel as class counsel and distribution of class notice. The Plaintiffs, as well as the putative class members, all worked for HP Inc. as field service engineers in New York at some point between February 21, 2014 (six years before the filing of the initial complaint) and present. As field service engineers, they engaged in substantial manual work fixing computers and related items which, inter alia, required tools such as a hand truck, screwdrivers, Allen wrenches, and hex tools. Such manual work comprised well in excess of 25% of their workday and as such they are manual workers. As manual workers they were required to be paid weekly and within 7 days of the end of the workweek in which wages were earned. The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes: (1) all Field Service Engineers1 who were employed by HPI in the state of New York from February 21, 2014, to present and (2) all Field Service Engineers who were employed by HPE in the state of New York from February 21, 2014 to present. Each of the elements for class certification are met. Hewlett-Packard provides products, technologies, software, solutions and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MJchGz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul A. Pagano, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL A. PAGANO, P.C. Telephone: (917)589-1479 E-mail: Paul@LawOfficePaulPagano.com HEY FAVOR: District Court Denies Meta's Bid to Sever Doe's Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANE DOE, Plaintiff v. HEY FAVOR, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-00059-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies Meta Platforms, Inc.'s motion to sever the claims the Plaintiff asserts against it. Meta moves to sever the claims the Plaintiff asserts against it in this suit from the claims asserted against the other four Defendants. Meta wants the claims asserted against it transferred to and consolidated with the claims In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, Case. No. 22-3580 ("Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation"). The Plaintiff opposes severance, but the Interim Class Counsel appointed in the consolidated Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation support severance. Having fully considered the arguments of all interested parties, Judge Orrick denies the motion to sever. He finds that the case concerns the conduct of five different Defendants and primarily concerns those five Defendants' capture and use of personal healthcare information through mobile applications or apps. The Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation concerns only the conduct of Meta and its capture and use of personal healthcare information primarily using Meta's Pixel and primarily through patient portals and related webpages on websites. The two types of cases are distinct. At this juncture, Judge Orrick does not believe that folding the app-based SDK claims into the Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation case is necessary (or even desirable) for purposes of judicial efficiency, including those claims that concern Meta and the collection of "healthcare" information. He is willing to look at this issue again later in the litigation if the benefits of severance/consolidation become clearer. But at present, the motion to sever is denied. Finally, the Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation Interim Lead Counsel's request for a blanket order requiring that future claims against Meta asserted in other actions after the date their consolidated complaint was filed be promptly severed and transferred is neither necessary nor appropriate. The Interim Lead Counsel or Meta's counsel can readily use existing procedural mechanisms to relate or to sever and seek consolidation of future claims that they believe should be folded into the Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation case. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ywfdf5an from Leagle.com. HONDA MOTOR: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN SPENCER, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HONDA MOTOR CORP. LTD., a Japanese corporation; AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00988-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue the deadline for plaintiff to file a motion for class certification to Sept. 29, 2023. Honda Motor engages in the manufacture and sale of automobiles, motorcycles, and power products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ounEdv at no extra charge.[CC] HTM TRANSPORTATION: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due Oct. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas Scaptura, v. HTM Transportation, LLC., et al. Case No. 3:23-cv-00134-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order: -- Any motion to join any person as a party August 18, 2023 to this action shall be made on or before: -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this August 18, 2023 action shall be made on or before: -- The parties are directed to file a August 17, 2023 status report on or before: -- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures May 11, 2023 are to be exchanged by: -- Initial Written Discovery Demands June 17, 2023 must be served by: -- All discovery in this matter is to March 29, 2024 be completed on or before: -- class certification motions are to October 31, 2023 be filed on or before: HTM Transportation is carrier company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C0lBAP at no extra charge.[CC] HUMANIGEN INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Humanigen 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 15, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 26, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Pieroni v. Humanigen Inc., et al., Case No. 22-cv-05258, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Cameron Durrant, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Timothy Morris. On October 17, 2022, a second putative securities class action complaint captioned Greenbaum v. Humanigen Inc., et al., Case No. 22-cv-06118, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, Dr. Durrant and the Company's Chief Scientific Officer, Dale Chappell. The complaints assert claims and seek damages for alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The two actions have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Humanigen, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-05258 and co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead law firms have been appointed. The Company believes that the allegations in the putative complaints are without merit and will vigorously defend against them. Humanigen is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business at 830 Morris Turnpike, 4th Floor, Short Hills, New Jersey. [BN] IFIT INC: Jones Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against iFit, Inc. The case is styled as Julio Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. iFit, Inc. doing business as: NordicTrack, Case No. 3:23-cv-00979-L-WVG (S.D. Cal., May 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Right to Privacy Act. iFIT -- https://www.ifit.com/ -- is a global health and fitness subscription technology company that provides unmatched fitness experiences and solutions to its growing community of six million engaged members across 120 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com J.C. WESTERN SUPPLY: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.C. Western Supply, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J.C. Western Supply, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04488 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. J.C. Western Supply, Inc. -- https://jcwesternwear.com/ -- offers boots, denim, dresses and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com JOHN STAHLMAN: Loses Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DAVID STAHLMAN, v. KATHY P. LANE and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Case No. 5:23-cv-00272-SPC-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sheri Polster Chappell entered an order denying Stahlman's request for class certification. Stahlman is a prisoner of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and he sues the BOP and Warden Kathy Lane because Lane excluded him from the prison's public messaging service. Stahlman wants to represent a class of prisoners in this action, but he fails to satisfy the requirements for class certification. Because Stahlman failed to satisfy the ascertainability requirement, the Court cannot consider the Rule 23(a) prerequisites—the Court cannot analyze an undefined class. That said, facts Stahlman alleges and the claims he asserts appear ill-suited for a class action, the Court says. A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43wuJJi at no extra charge.[CC] JOSH STEIN: ACLUNC Seeks Certification of Defendant Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. JOSH STEIN, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00302-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(1)(A), and (b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for certification of a defendant class. The Plaintiff filed this case on April 10, 2023, asserting that N.C. Gen. Stat. section 14-288.2 (the "Anti-Riot Act"), as recently amended and expanded by House Bill 40, North Carolina Session Law 2023-6, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, sections 12, 14, and 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Attorney General Joshua Stein and a class of North Carolina district attorneys represented by District Attorneys Satana Deberry, Avery Crump, and Lorrin Freeman, in their official capacities. The Plaintiff moves for certification of a class referred to as the Defendant District Attorney Class, to be defined as follows: "All elected District Attorneys in North Carolina in their official capacities." The proposed class is comprised of approximately 43 elected district attorneys. Further, putative class members are spread across the entire state. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N3h5rK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Davis, Esq. Kristi L. Graunke, Esq. ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 354-5071 E-mail: sdavis@acluofnc.org kgraunke@acluofnc.org JOY MEDIA WORKS: Rhoadarmer Files Suit in D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joy Media Works LLC. The case is styled as Katelyn Rhoadarmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Joy Media Works LLC D/B/A ZITOBOX, Case No. CJ-2023-3041 (D. Okla., May 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Civil Relief More Than $10,000: Class Action." Joy Media Works -- https://joymediaworks.com/ -- is a software development company that develops platforms across the social media community of Facebook, Apple Store, Google Play Store and more.[BN] KANSAS CITY LIFE: Seeks Partial Decertification of Class in Meek ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER Y. MEEK, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00472-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for partial decertification of the class: -- To decertify as to individuals who did not suffer any overcharges after June 18, 2014. -- Partial class decertification is appropriate because the Plaintiff's equitable estoppel assertion includes disputed issues of fact that cannot be decided based on common, classwide proof, including in particular the issue of reliance. The Defendant underwrites, sells, and administers a range of life insurance and annuity products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ILSIMz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Traci Lynn Martinez, Esq. Adam R. Fox, Esq. Hannah J. Makinde, Esq. James Randolph Evans, Esq. Daniel Delnero, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 41 South High Street 2000 Huntington Center, 20th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 365-2807 E-mail: traci.martinez@squirepb.com adam.fox@squirepb.com hannah.makinde@squirepb.com randy.evans@squirepb.com daniel.delnero@squirepb.com - and - John W. Shaw, Esq. Lauren Tallent, Esq. BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 1200 Kansas City, MO 65108 Telephone: (816) 561-7007 Facsimile: (816) 561-1888 E-mail: jshaw@berkowitzoliver.com ltallent@berkowitzoliver.com KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Hagins ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Robert Hagins, et al., Plaintiffs v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. CV-22-01835-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz.), Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001-1461 ("ERISA"). They allege the Defendant breached its fiduciary duties and that it failed to monitor other fiduciaries as required by ERISA. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. The Plaintiffs are participants of the Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. Retirement Plan. The Plan is a defined contribution retirement plan, in which participants' retirement benefits are limited to the value of their own individual investment accounts, which is determined by the market performance of employee and employer contributions, less expenses. The Defendant is the Plan Sponsor and Plan Administrator and is thus a fiduciary of the Plan. The Plaintiffs' first claim alleges the Defendant breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA by mismanaging the Plan. They allege two factual bases for this claim. First, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant failed to monitor or control the Plan's recordkeeping expenses paid to a third-party, Principal Life Insurance Co. The Defendant allegedly paid direct and indirect recordkeeping expenses, both of which Plaintiffs allege were excessive. Second, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant breached its fiduciary duty by selecting more expensive share classes participants may choose to invest in instead of low-cost institutional shares of the same funds. They claim the Plan participants are invested in imprudent share classes that are about twice as expensive than other shares of the same funds. The Plaintiffs' second claim alleges the Defendant, as Plan Sponsor, failed to monitor the fiduciaries in the Retirement/Deferred Compensation Plan Administrative Committee. They allege the Defendant failed to monitor the Committee's oversight of the Plan, resulting in significant losses. Together with its motion to dismiss, the Defendant filed various documents as exhibits. The Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of these documents. It argues the Court may consider publicly filed documents, and the Court may consider documents referenced in the Plaintiffs' complaint. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have moved to strike Exhibits 1-12 attached to the Defendant's motion to dismiss. They argue the documents were not attached to or relied on in their complaint. The Plaintiffs further contest the accuracy of the information in the exhibits. Judge Silver grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to strike. First, she agrees with the Defendant that the 2021 Form 5500 is referenced numerous times in the Plaintiff's complaint. Additionally, the Plaintiffs do reference one comparator plan in the complaint. Accordingly, Judge Silver takes judicial notice of those two Form 5500s. However, Judge Silver says the remaining forms are not specifically referenced in the complaint, and the Plaintiffs object to the Court taking notice of them. Many of the cases the Defendant cites to support its argument that the Court may take judicial notice of these documents are ones in which the Plaintiffs did not oppose such notice. Since the Plaintiffs object to the Court judicially noticing these additional documents, and since the Defendant urges the Court to review the documents to address factual disputes, it is inappropriate for the Court to take notice of those documents. The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Judge Silver finds that the allegations support the Plaintiffs' claim that here, where the Plan included thousands of participants, the Defendant failed to monitor recordkeeping fees and negotiate for lower fees using their superior bargaining power in accordance with its fiduciary duty. She also finds that the Plaintiffs allege facts sufficient to survive the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs cited numerous share classes where a lower-cost share class of the same fund existed. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding recordkeeping fees and expensive share classes are sufficient to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty of prudence. So, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count 1 is denied. The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs' second count for failure to monitor the Plan's Committee fails because it is only a derivative claim, and it maintains the Plaintiffs have failed to state an ERISA violation. However, as discussed, the Plaintiffs do state a claim under ERISA. Dismissal is thus unwarranted on this basis. The Defendant also argues the Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege Defendant failed to review and monitor the performance of the Committee. Judge Rowland disagrees. She finds that the Plaintiffs specifically alleged that the Defendant failed to monitor the processes by which the Plan's expenses and investments were evaluated and failed to remove the Committee as a fiduciary when its performance was inadequate. These allegations, she says, are sufficient to state a claim. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/39crnfd4 from Leagle.com. LANDMARK RECOVERY: Court OK's Conditional Cert. Bid in Black ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLACK, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. LANDMARK RECOVERY OF LOUISVILLE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00217 (M.D. Tenn.), the Court entered an order granting joint motion to approve conditional certification and stipulated form of notice of collective action. 1. The Court conditionally certifies this case as an FLSA collective action consisting of the following individuals: "All current and former Intake Patient Engagement Specialists of the Defendant who worked in excess of 40 hours, who were classified as exempt beginning three years preceding March 10, 2023, and continuing through the final disposition of this case." 2. Within 21 days of the entry of this Order, the Defendant shall provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with a notice list in Excel format containing the following information for each individual who falls within the definition in paragraph 1 of this order: name(s), dates of employment, last-known mailing address(es), last-known e-mail address(es), and last-known telephone number(s). 3. The Plaintiffs' counsel, or a third-party designated by the Plaintiffs' counsel, shall distributethe Court-authorized Notices and Consent Forms via U.S. Mail and E-mail and one SMS / text message. Each mailed Notice shall be accompanied by the Consent Form and a pre-addressed, prepaid return envelope. Each e-mailed Notice shall contain a link that can be used to access the Consent Form in order to sign and return it to the Plaintiffs' counsel. Likewise, each text messaged Notice shall contain a link that can be used to view the Notice and access the Consent Form in order to sign and return it to the Plaintiffs' counsel. No other material shall accompany the Notices. 4. No later than seven days after the Notices have been sent, the Plaintiffs' counsel shall file with the Court a certification that the Notices have been sent consistent with this Order and identifying the date of mailing. Landmark Recovery is a family-owned drug and alcohol addiction treatment provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oCMVlz at no extra charge.[CC] LANDMARK RECOVERY: Seeks Stay on Conditional Certification Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA ISAACS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LANDMARK RECOVERY OF LOUISVILLE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00210 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendant moves the Court to stay any determination on conditional certification pending the final disposition of Clark, et al. v. A&L Home Care and Training Ctr., et al., Sixth Circuit Case No. 22-3101, currently on appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Landmark Recovery is a family-owned drug and alcohol addiction treatment provider. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45E9aYS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan O. Harris, Esq. Allison Gluvna Folk, Esq. Ashton P. Hoffman, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 611 Commerce Street, Suite 2803 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 565-1665 E-mail: jonathan.harris@jacksonlewis.com allison.folk@jacksonlewis.com ashton.hoffman@jacksonlewis.com LIVE VENTURES: Continues to Defend Sanchez Labor-Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Live Ventures 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 itself from Sanchez labor-related class suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. On July 27, 2022, Irma Sanchez, a former employee of Elite Builder Services, Inc., filed a class action complaint against Elite Builders in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. The complaint alleges that Elite Builders failed to pay all minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide lawful meal periods and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay all wages due upon separation as required by California law. The complaint was later amended as a matter of right on October 4, 2022. Further, Ms. Sanchez has put the Labor & Workforce Development Agency on notice to exhaust administrative remedies and enable her to bring an additional claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, which permits an employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to recover statutory penalties. A Motion for Change of Venue to Stanislaus County was filed by Elite Builders on December 7, 2022. The hearing on the motion was heard on February 8, 2023. Elite Builders’ motion to change venue was granted. Company believes that Mr. Sanchez's claims lack merit and intends to defend this action vigorously. Live Ventures Incorporated is a holding company with focus on value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies based in Neveda. LOS ANGELES, CA: Application for Temporary Stay of Discovery Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dennis Bradshaw v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-06661-VAP-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an order denying ex parte application for a temporary stay of discovery (in chambers). As a preliminary matter, the Court declines to grant the stay of discovery requested by the Kiesel Defendants. "An ex parte application is a means of obtaining extraordinary relief and is appropriate in only rare circumstances." Ex parte relief is justified only when the evidence shows that "the moving party's cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures." The Kiesel Defendants have not demonstrated that their cause will be irreparably prejudiced absent a stay. They suggest that if merits-based discovery were to proceed, the Court could not later bifurcate class-related discovery from merits-based discovery. The Court disagrees. As the Kiesel Defendants themselves acknowledge, "Rule 26 gives district courts 'broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly,' up to and including a stay of discovery to protect a party from undue burden or expense." This discretion does not end once merits-based discovery begins. The Court will allow the Libman Defendants to depose the Plaintiff on May 22, 2023, but does not rule out bifurcating class-related discovery from merits-based discovery in the future. The Court further agrees with the Plaintiff that if the Libman the Defendants proceed with the May 22, 2023, deposition, the deposition should not be limited to class certification issues. The Libman the Defendants are of course free to limit their questions to those concerning class certification, but if they seek to depose the Plaintiff a second time without a stipulation of the parties, they must do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2). Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WECP04 at no extra charge.[CC] LUMAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Attention Luminar Technologies, Inc. ("Luminar") (NASDAQ: LAZR) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between February 28, 2023 and March 17, 2023. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Luminar, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/luminar-class-action-submission-form?prid=40267&wire=4 ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Luminar includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Luminar had misappropriated an image of a competitor's photonic integrated circuit ("PIC") to market the Company's own products and capabilities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of, inter alia, litigation and/or regulatory enforcement action; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Luminar's business and reputation; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DEADLINE: July 25, 2023 Aggrieved Luminar investors only have until July 25, 2023 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Settlement in Labor Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ginger Christ at hrdive.com reports that a proposed settlement in a class-action case between Marriott International and about 375 workers at a California hotel (Rivera v. Marriott International, Inc.) was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over potential collusion, according to court filings. The court characterized the parties' handling of class claims as "questionable." At issue was the plaintiff's history in defining the case as a class-action lawsuit. In April 2019, the plaintiff filed a putative class-action case, arguing Marriott didn't pay all wages or provide meal breaks or rest periods, among other allegations. The case was moved to federal court, and in October 2021, the plaintiff requested to drop the class allegations and proceed with an individual case. In January 2022, with the help of a mediator, the parties agreed to a settlement but, in March 2022, requested the case be remanded to state court for approval of the settlement, which was denied. In April 2022, the plaintiff sought approval of a class-action settlement agreement with Marriott, but the court denied it because the class-action claims had been removed from the case. The plaintiff requested that the class-action allegations be reinstated in November 2022 and reapplied for preliminary approval of a class-action settlement in December 2022. The court said the parties haven't explained why they tried to settle class claims while there wasn't a class-action lawsuit, why they wanted to reinstate the case as a class-action lawsuit to reach a settlement or why they wanted to move the case back to state court to handle the settlement. "These contradictory actions by the parties are indicative of collusion. Absent any explanation, the court is not satisfied that the settlement was the product of 'serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations,'" the court said. Dive Insight: Although uncommon, a judge can deny a potential settlement agreement for a number of reasons, such as if the settlement doesn't seem fair, provide enough compensation or offer corrections to alleged wrongdoing. In April 2019, a California judge rejected a $7.5 million settlement between three groups -- O.C. Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC -- and a group of technicians who had alleged wage and hour violations because the agreement didn't address what the court saw as "systemic" problems that could happen again. In the proposed Marriott settlement, the court also raised concerns about how money sought in the settlement would be divided and how the class members would be notified of their rights and options.[GN] MARYLAND: T.G. Files ADA Suit in D. Maryland -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maryland Department of Human Services, et al. The case is styled as T. G., a minor in the custody of the Baltimore County Department of Social Services, on behalf of himself and all other children similarly situated, by his next friend, Beverly Schulterbrandt; T. A., a minor in the custody of the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services, on behalf of himself and all other children similarly situated, by his next friend, Ethel Zelenske; D. B., a minor in the custody of the Prince George's County Department of Social Services, on behalf of herself and all other children similarly situated, by her next friend, Selene Almazan; M. G., a minor in the custody of the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services, on behalf of herself and all other children similarly situated, by her next friend, Selene Almazan; Disability Rights Maryland, Inc.; v. Maryland Department of Human Services; Maryland Department of Health; Raphael Lopez, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Human Services; Stephen Liggett-Creel, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Human Services; Laura Herrera Scott, M.D., in her official capacity as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Health; Bernard Simons, in his official capacity as MDH Deputy Secretary for Developmental Disabilities and Director of the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration; Lisa Burgess M.D., in her official capacity as Acting MDH Deputy Secretary for Behavioral Health and Director of the Maryland Behavioral Health Administration; Ryan B. Moran, DrPH, in his official capacity as Deputy Secretary Health Care Financing & Maryland Medicaid Director; Gregory Branch, in his official capacity as Director of the Baltimore County Department of Social Services; Oscar Mensah, in his official capacity as Acting Social Services Officer of the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services; Gloria L. Brown Burnett, in her official capacity as Director of the Prince George's County Department of Social Services, Case No. 8:23-cv-01433-GLS (D. Md., May 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Maryland Department of Human Services (DHS) -- https://dhs.maryland.gov/ -- is the state's primary social service provider with 24 local departments of social services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leslie Seid Margolis, Esq. Megan Rector Berger, Esq. Luciene M Parsley, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS MARYLAND 1500 Union Ave., Ste 2000 Baltimore, MD 21211 Phone: (410) 727-6352 Fax: (410) 727-6389 Email: lesliem@disabilityrightsmd.org megan.berger@disabilityrightsmd.org lucienep@disabilityrightsmd.org - and – Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Esq. VENABLE LLP 750 East Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 244-7400 Fax: (410) 244-7742 Email: mymirviss@venable.com MATCH GROUP: Block & Leviton Named Class Counsel in Bardaji Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LEOPOLD RIOLA BARDAJI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. MATCH GROUP, INC., SHARMISTHA DUBEY, BERNARD KIM, and GARY SWINDLER, Defendants, C.A. No. 23-245 (MN) (D. Del.), Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware appoints Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds as the Lead Plaintiff and Block & Leviton LLP as the Lead Counsel. On March 6, 2023, Bardaji, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated who purchased or otherwise acquired Match Group common stock between Nov. 3, 2021 through Jan. 31, 2023, inclusive, filed a Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws against the Defendants. The present case asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLSRA") (15 U.S.C. Sections 78(j)(b) and 78(t)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under it (17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5). On May 5, 2023, Daniel J. Rittenhouse, Yates Honma, the Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds ("NCPTTF"), Mary Moran and Andreas Kallenos all timely filed motions seeking to be named as lead plaintiff and seeking approval of selection counsel. On May 16, 2023, and May 19, 2023, Daniel J. Rittenhouse and Andreas Kallenos each filed a notice of non-opposition stating that, after reviewing the competing motions, neither appeared to have the largest financial interest in this litigation. And, on May 18, 2023 and May 19, 2023, Yates Honma and Mary Moran withdrew their motions after reviewing the competing motions and also determining they did not appear to have the largest financial interest in the litigation. Therefore, the only motion presently before the Court is NCPTTF's motion. After reviewing the papers, and the fact that no other movant contested NCPTTF's ability to serve as lead plaintiff, Judge Noreika concludes that NCPTTF has stated a prima facie case of typicality and adequacy under Rule 23. Therefore, NCPTTF will be appointed the Lead Plaintiff. NCPTTF requests that the Court approves its selection of Block & Leviton LLP as the Lead Counsel for the proposed class in the present action. Block Leviton has substantial experience in securities fraud litigation, as well other types of class actions, and it has served as lead (or co-lead) counsel in many of those cases over the last decade. Block Leviton has obtained a significant number of sizeable settlements in these cases over the years. Judge Noreika finds no basis to disturb the PSLRA's "strong presumption" in favor of a lead plaintiff's selection and retention of counsel. Therefore, she will approve of NCPTTF's selection of Block Leviton as the Lead Counsel. For these reasons, Judge Noreika denies as moot (i) the Motion of Daniel J. Rittenhouse for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel; and (ii) the Motion of Andreas Kallenos for: (1) Appointment as Lead Plaintiff; and (2) Approval of Selection of Counsel. Judge Noreika grants Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counse. Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds is appointed to serve as the Lead Plaintiff and Block & Leviton LLP as the Lead Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ywr33vje from Leagle.com. MDL 2573: Court Dismisses Nicholson Silver Fix Price Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicholson v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-05682 (S.D.N.Y., Filed July 25, 2014), the Hon. Judge Valerie E. Caproni entered an order granting motion for judgment on the pleadings involving Plaintiffs' allegation that the Fixing Banks violated the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by manipulating the Fix and trading on their foreknowledge of the Fix Price. -- As this resolves all remaining claims raised in the Third Amended Complaint (TAC), the case is dismissed with prejudice. -- The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the open motion at docket entry 604 and to close this case and all related and member cases. The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural posture of this case. To briefly recap the facts most relevant to this motion, TAC, which is the operative complaint, alleges that the Fixing Banks conspired to episodically depress the Silver Fix, which set the benchmark price for London "Good Delivery" silver bars and influenced the price of silver and silver derivatives worldwide. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Fixing Banks improperly traded silver derivates on their advance knowledge of the Fix Price. The Fix occurs at noon London time, well before U.S. markets open. After nearly five years of litigation, only claims regarding Fix-related manipulation against two Fixing Banks, Scotiabank and HSBC, remain. In relevant part, the TAC analyzes publicly available data to provide a factual basis from which the Court could infer that the Defendants conspired to suppress periodically the Fix price of silver. According to the Plaintiffs, this is all circumstantial evidence of improper trading by the Fixing Banks to profit from their advance knowledge of the Fix Price to the detriment of others who were trading silver derivatives at that time. The Court has previously decided two motions to dismiss directed at the second and third amended complaints. In Silver I, the Court held that the Plaintiffs' Fixing-related allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint, which alleged substantially similar facts to those presently at issue, adequately, albeit barely, stated claims for violations of the Sherman Act and the CEA. In Silver II, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims against a group of banks that were not involved in the Fix, noting that the Plaintiffs were indirect, "umbrella" purchasers who did not directly transact with the non-Fixing Banks. Following recent developments in Second Circuit caselaw, the efendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert their CEA or antitrust claims and, even if they do, the Plaintiffs' CEA claims are impermissibly extraterritorial. The Court has not previously decided these questions with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims against the Fixing Banks in the Third Amended Complaint but has extensively discussed these issues with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims generally. Second Circuit Decisions Post-Silver II Through a series of decisions following Silver II -- primarily, but not exclusively, in other commodities benchmark cases -- the Second Circuit has clarified the requirements for private Plaintiffs seeking to bring antitrust or CEA claims: they must allege facts from which the court can reasonably infer that their alleged injury was directly connected to the challenged conduct, and any claims of unlawful manipulation of a commodities market must include manipulation in the United States to fall within the scope of the CEA. The Plaintiffs Lack Antitrust Standing Accordingly, a private plaintiff only has standing to bring a Sherman Act claim if he "shows: (1) antitrust injury, which is injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful, and (2) that he is a proper plaintiff in light of four efficient enforcer factors." If plaintiffs fail to make the requisite showing, the Court must dismiss the case because "antitrust standing is a threshold, pleading-stage inquiry." In sum, the TAC does not allege sufficient facts to allow the Court to infer that it is plausible, as opposed to merely possible, that the artificial pricing conditions caused by the Defendants' episodic conduct persisted long enough to affect the Plaintiffs’ trades, regardless of how long after the Defendants’ manipulative conduct the Plaintiffs' trades occurred. As noted in Silver II, the TAC alleges only that the effect of the manipulation of the Fix abated gradually over time. The Plaintiffs Are Not Efficient Enforcers Regardless of whether the Plaintiffs have suffered an antitrust injury, the Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing because they are not efficient enforcers. "The key principle underlying the efficient enforcer test is proximate cause": a plaintiff must allege a "direct connection between the harm and the alleged antitrust violation." Commodity Exchange Act Claims The Plaintiffs' CEA claims are premised on the same alleged Fix- related manipulation as their Sherman Act claim. To bring a manipulation claim under the CEA, the Plaintiffs must allege that the Defendants engaged in conduct that violated the CEA; to have CEA standing, the Plaintiffs must allege that conduct caused them to suffer "actual damages." The Plaintiffs must also plausibly allege that the Defendants' alleged conduct was sufficiently domestic to bring that conduct within the scope of the CEA. The Plaintiffs have done neither. Extraterritoriality Even if the Plaintiffs had adequately alleged CEA standing, they have failed to establish that the Defendants' actionable conduct was sufficiently domestic to fall within the scope of the CEA. The Plaintiffs argue that the alleged manipulative conduct is sufficiently domestic because the Defendants, frequent traders in U.S. markets, must have traded in the United States to profit from their manipulation of the Fix. The Plaintiffs point to a spike in trading activity in COMEX silver futures in the lead-up to the Fix and quantitative analysis demonstrating the Defendants' financial incentive to trade on their foreknowledge of the Fixing price. The Nicholson suit is consolidated in LONDON SILVER FIXING, LTD., ANTITRUST LITIGATION (MDL 2573). A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MTawqd at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3078: 5 Suits Consolidated in Generac Products Liability Row ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: Generac Solar Power Systems Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3078, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consolidates two cases from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and one each from the Eastern District of California, Northern District of California and the Middle District of Florida, all to the Eastern District of Wisconsin and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Lynn S. Adelman for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. These actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations that the "SnapRS" rapid shutdown components in solar power storage systems manufactured and marketed by Generac have a tendency to overheat and melt or catch fire, causing loss of power and the risk of fire or other damage to users' homes. All involved actions are putative nationwide or statewide class actions. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar claims for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or breach of implied and express warranties, along with various claims for breach of contract, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, or violation of state consumer protection statutes. All parties support centralization, but they disagree as to the appropriate transferee forum. The panel agrees that centralization would avert the risk of duplicative discovery and avoid inconsistent rulings with respect to class certification and other pretrial issues and that the Eastern District of Wisconsin is an appropriate transferee district since Generac's headquarters are located within the district. A full-text copy of the court's June 2, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3078-Transfer_Order-5-23.pdf MDL 3079: 18 Suits Consolidated in Tepezza Litigation Row --------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: Tepezza Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3079, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consolidates 14 cases from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and one case each from the Northern District of California, Middle District of Georgia, Northern District of New York and the Western District of Washington, all to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Thomas M. Durkin for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The actions arise from alleged permanent hearing loss and tinnitus associated with the use of the drug "Tepezza." All actions can be expected to share factual questions arising from the alleged propensity of said drug, which treats thyroid eye disease, to cause severe or permanent hearing loss and tinnitus. Plaintiffs suffered the same signature injuries: hearing loss and tinnitus. The same factual questions regarding general causation, including the biological mechanism of the alleged injury, are present in all cases. Similarly common are questions surrounding the adequacy of testing Horizon (defendant) conducted regarding Tepezza and the sufficiency of hearing loss warnings made on the product label. Centralization offers an opportunity to substantially streamline pretrial proceedings, reduce duplicative discovery and conflicting pretrial obligations, as well as prevent inconsistent rulings on common preemption. Horizon opposed the motions to centralize, arguing that there are not enough actions to justify the creation of an MDL. It insisted that centralization is premature, that informal cooperation is ongoing, and, in any event, an MDL is not needed to streamline the litigation. The panel finds that informally coordinating these cases will be increasingly challenging for the parties and the courts if the number of actions rise and motion practice proceeds in each action. Moreover, Horizon has opposed reassignment of all Northern District of Illinois actions to a single judge and contemplates coordination of discovery only after the judge assigned to each case rules on its pending motion to dismiss. Although defendant's motions to dismiss target the viability of plaintiffs' claims brought under varying state laws, it makes some cross-cutting preemption arguments. The panel views having multiple judges resolve these common preemption arguments about the same drug as a highly inefficient arrangement that undermines judicial economy and needlessly increases the risk of inconsistent rulings. Hence, it is persuaded that the Northern District of Illinois is the appropriate transferee district for these cases since Horizon is based in this convenient and readily accessible district, where likely relevant documents and witnesses may be found. A full-text copy of the court's June 2, 2023 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3079-Transfer_Order-5-23.pdf MERCER UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit After 93,000 Impacted by Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ 11alive.com reports that Mercer University is facing a class action lawsuit for its alleged "failure to properly secure and safeguard" personal information for more than 93,000 individuals impacted by a data breach. In a lawsuit filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Newnan Division on May 31, a "John Doe" accused the corporation of Mercer University of not taking proper precautions that led to the breach of thousands of people's personal and financial information. Court documents allege that on April 5 a third-party gained access to students' information with the intent to sell it. The personal identifiable information (PII) could include social security numbers, passport numbers, driver's license numbers and financial account numbers, the lawsuit reads. Accusing the university of being negligent, attorneys for the plaintiff said they suffered fraudulent credit charges. The plaintiff, only identified as an alumnus of the university who now lives in LaGrange, and others who may have been impacted received a letter of the breach on May 19. Attorneys said the university is irresponsible for notifying individuals of the breach more than a month after the cyberattack. To help make up for the impact of the breach, attorneys for the former Mercer University student are asking for a "prayer of relief," in which the members of the class action lawsuit request the court enter a judgment in their favor. Specifically, the lawsuit asks for a jury trial if required, and members of the lawsuit are asking the court award damages -- including consequential damages -- as allowed by law. As part of a resolution, the lawsuit also asks the court to require Mercer University to protect, including through encryption, all data collected through its course of business. The plaintiff also asks university leaders to implement an information security program and to delete and purge all personal information of the class members unless Mercer has a reasonable justification for retaining them. 11Alive received the following statement from Mercer University, which was posted on the university's website in May. The university added it does not comment on pending litigation: Mercer University recently detected an incident involving unauthorized access to its computer network. In response to the incident, the University launched an investigation with the assistance of law enforcement and outside legal and technical consultants. Although the University has taken extensive measures to protect the privacy of its information, some data — Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers — were removed from its systems without authorization. The University has found no evidence that personal financial information was removed.[GN] MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MICHAEL T. CARTWRIGHT, KIRK R. MANZ and ANDREW W. McWILLIAMS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00407 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System moves the Court for an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; (2) approving the form and manner of giving notice of the proposed settlement to the Class; (3) preliminarily granting class certification for settlement purposes; and (4) setting a hearing date for final approval thereof, and a schedule for various deadlines relevant thereto. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WAqhad at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Wood, Esq. Christopher H. Lyons, Esq. Henry s. Bator, Esq. Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Christopher D. Stewart, Esq. Francisco J. Mejia, Esq. Jack Abbey Gephart, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 Facsimile: (615)252-3798 E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com clyons@rgrdlaw.com hbator@rgrdlaw.com darrenr@rgrdlaw.com cstewart@rgrdlaw.com fmejia@rgrdlaw.com jgephart@rgrdlaw.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com MONEX DEPOSIT: Class Certification Briefing Deadlines Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY BERGERON, ndividually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MONEX DEPOSIT COMPANY, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01968-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend class certification briefing deadlines. Monex Deposit retails jewelry. The Company offers gold, silver, palladium, metal, and platinum products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BYIMeW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert G. Loewy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C. 20 Enterprise, Suite 310 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Telephone: (949) 468-7150 Facsimile: (949) 242-5105 E-mail: rloewy@rloewy.com - and - Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. Johnston de F. Whitman, Jr. , Esq. Michelle M. Newcomer, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: gjarvis@ktmc.com jwhitman@ktmc.com mnewcomer@ktmc.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Nicolle Brito, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 N.E. Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com nbrito@rgrdlaw.com NATIONAL GRID: Bid for Summary Judgment OK'd in Nightingale Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIGHTINGALE, v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., FIRST CONTACT LLC, and IQOR US INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-12341-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order allowing the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court concludes that a reasonable fact-finder could determine that the calls placed by defendants were unreasonable relative to their purpose but could not determine that they caused a substantial or serious intrusion upon the sphere of personal privacy maintained by Nightingale. The Plaintiff nevertheless cites Tyler in support of his argument that there was a cognizable invasion of privacy in the pending case. In that decision, the SJC held that a merchant who has acquired personal information in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A, section 105(a) causes a separate and distinct injury by then using that information for its own business purposes, and it noted that the conduct at issue violated Section 9 because it represents an invasion of the consumer's personal privacy causing injury or harm worth more than a penny. The lawsuit involves claims of unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of regulations promulgated by the Massachusetts Attorney General under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Nightingale brought this action under section 9 of that statute on behalf of himself and a putative class against National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. Nightingale is a resident of Boston, Massachusetts. National Grid is an electricity, natural gas and energy delivery company with a principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts. National Grid distributes electricity and gas energy. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WGIhzF at no extra charge.[CC] NEW AMERICAN: Martin Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATRINA MARTIN, v. NEW AMERICAN CINEMA GROUP, INC, MARIE SERRA, a/k/a MM SERRA, Case No. 1:22-cv-05982-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the case as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff requests certification of: Injunctive Relief Class: "All persons whose work was used by the Defendant in violation of their exclusive copyrights without a license during the applicable Class Period." The Plaintiff asks the Court to adjudicate only liability, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief through the Injunctive Relief Class. The Injunctive Relief Class does not seek any form of monetary relief. Excluded from the Injunctive Relief Class are: (a) the Defendant, the Defendant's board members, executive-level officers, and attorneys, and immediate family members of any of the foregoing persons; (b) governmental entities; (c) the Court, the Court’s immediate family, and the Court staff; and (d) any person that timely and properly excludes himself or herself from the Class in accordance with Court-approved procedures. The Monetary Relief Class "All persons whose work was used by the Defendant in violation of their exclusive copyrights without a license or proper compensation during the applicable Class Period, and/or who were improperly charged dues by NACG. The Plaintiff asks the Court to adjudicate all forms of relief through the Monetary Relief Class. Excluded from the Monetary Relief Class are: (a) the Defendant, the Defendant's board members, executive-level officers, and attorneys, and immediate family members of any of the foregoing persons; (b) governmental entities; (c) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and the Court staff; and (d) any person that timely and properly excludes himself or herself from the Class in accordance with Court-approved procedures. New American is an artist's run organization dedicated to the distribution and exhibition of alternative media in all its forms. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OK7qY8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik Dykema, Esq. Serge Krimnus, Esq. BOCHNER IP, PLLC 295 Madison Ave, 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 971-0685 E-mail: erik@bochnerip.com serge@bochnerip.com NIKE INC: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nike Inc., Case No. HUD-L-000863-23 was removed from the Superior Court of Hudson County, New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 30, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02947 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nike, Inc. -- https://www.nike.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation that is engaged in the design, development, manufacturing, and worldwide marketing and sales of footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants is represented by: Joseph Michael Vento, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 8th Ave., Ste. 31-084 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 218-5548 Email: jvento@seyfarth.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Derailment -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Gauntner at wfmj.com reports that four months after a Norfolk Southern train hauling chemicals derailed and caught fire in East Palestine, the railroad is responding to a negligence lawsuit by asking a judge that it be dismissed. Attorneys for the railroad have filed a 57-page motion to dismiss a complaint consolidated from 31 separate class action lawsuits filed after the February 3rd derailment and subsequent decision to initiate a "controlled burn" of leaking chemical tank cars. In addition, the railroad company asks U.S. District Court Judge Benita Pearson to strike the plaintiff's request for punitive damages. In the filing, attorneys for the railroad claim that the first car to derail did not belong to Norfolk Southern and that Norfolk Southern did not construct the wheel bearing that allegedly "overheated" and "caused the train to derail." Characterizing claims made in the class action as "vague and conclusory", Norfolk Southern says it was conducting business under federal requirements when it was transporting vinyl chloride on the train that jumped the tracks in East Palestine. Noting that the lawsuit seeks to represent half a million people covering 3,000 square miles in three states within a 30-mile radius around the derailment, Norfolk Southern questions the conclusion that "smoke and particulate plume somehow uniformly traveled 30 miles in every direction, despite, for example, varying atmospheric conditions; and that the traveling plume caused unspecified economic loss, property damage, and increased health risk." Calling the complaint, "strikingly -- and fatally -- threadbare,", railroad attorneys are critical of claims that the derailed train had too many cars and that Norfolk Southern improperly organized and loaded those cars, stating that such concerns are governed by the Surface Transportation Board. "They (plaintiffs) also allege, without elaboration, that Norfolk Southern violated dozens of duties, some of which reflect duties imposed by federal regulations. But Plaintiffs make no attempt to explain with plausible factual allegations how Norfolk Southern violated any purported federal regulation or duty imposed by federal regulations," Norfolk Southern stated in its motion to dismiss. The motion also addressed the plaintiff's claims that the railroad failed to adequately inspect and monitor the so-called "wayside detectors" or "hot-box detectors," which "alert operators to equipment failures while the train is in operation." Norfolk Southern said that Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards do not require the use of hot-box detectors. Using the term "generic" to label allegations that Norfolk Southern was negligent in transporting hazardous chemicals, the railroad's motion says claims of negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, and liability claims are preempted by federal law. Norfolk Southern says the class action does not specifically state how or in what ways the property was harmed, calling them "bare allegations of property damage without factual support of what that damage is". Norfolk Southern says the complainants failed to show that the railroad acted maliciously, intentionally harmed the plaintiffs or exposed their bodies or properties to unsafe levels of contaminants. The railroad denies allegations that they failed to preserve evidence of the incident, claiming that the train's cab surveillance video was lost because of automated deletion protocols. Norfolk Southern's motion enumerates some of the efforts it has undertaken to assist people in the area, including providing $16 million dollars in financial assistance to residents and businesses through its Family Assistance Center, as well as a commitment to creating a healthcare fund, a property fund for homeowners who sell their homes, and a water-testing fund for East Palestine and surrounding communities. The motion to dismiss also discussed the railroad's effort to remediate the derailment site under the oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency. "Norfolk Southern deeply regrets the impact this derailment has had on people and businesses in East Palestine and the surrounding area. Norfolk Southern is committed to making things right. At the same time, Norfolk Southern must defend itself against unfounded accusations and legally deficient claims. That is the case here," Norfolk Southern state in its motion. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs had not responded to the motion to dismiss. [GN] OAKLAND, CA: Facing Multiple Class Suits Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder at hipaajournal.com reports that multiple class action lawsuits have been filed against the city of Oakland in California over a ransomware attack and data breach that involved the theft of the personal and protected health information of 13,000 current and former employees. The ransomware attack was detected on February 8, 2023, and forced the city to shut down its systems to contain the attack, resulting in a state of emergency being declared in the city. Systems remained offline for weeks due to the attack, with the recovery process taking months. The Play ransomware group took credit for the attack and started leaking some of the stolen data to pressure the city into paying the ransom. Initially, 10 gigabytes of stolen data was released on the group's dark web data leak site, followed by a massive data dump of 600 gigabytes when the city continued to refuse to pay the ransom. The leaked data included the personal information of individuals employed by the city between July 2010 and January 2022. The ransomware attack is understood to have started with phishing emails. Multiple class action lawsuits have been filed against the city on behalf of victims of the data breach that allege the city failed to implement appropriate security measures to keep employees' private information confidential, with several victims of the breach claiming they have had their identities stolen and have experienced credit card fraud. The city has offered complimentary credit monitoring services to affected employees and has started to improve security, including implementing a training program for the workforce to improve resilience to phishing attempts. A lawsuit was filed by the Oakland police officers' union that alleges the city failed to provide important information about the extent of the incident and the types of data stolen in the attack and seeks monetary compensation and extended credit monitoring and identity theft protection and restoration services. Another lawsuit names Hada Gonzalez as lead plaintiff, a police services technician, who alleges the city was negligent for failing to protect against the attack. The lawsuit alleges data breach notification failures and violations of the HIPAA Security Rule. As a result of the negligence, the plaintiffs and class members claim they have suffered ongoing, imminent, and impending threats of fraud, identity theft, and abuse of their data, resulting in monetary losses and economic harm. The lawsuit seeks an award of damages and injunctive relief, including the requirement for the city to maintain a comprehensive information security program, encrypt sensitive data, undergo third-party security audits, establish an information security training program, and implement other security measures.[GN] ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Court Narrows Claims in Granados Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNA GRANADOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ONPOINT COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:21-cv-00847-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order granting in part and denying in part OnPoint's motion to dismiss, and dismisses Granados' second, fifth, and sixth claims for relief. The Court denies OnPoint's motion to strike Granados' class allegations. Granados' class definitions are not "obviously defective in some way. Striking her classes at this stage, therefore, would be premature. A motion for class certification is the proper procedural context to resolve OnPoint's arguments. The Court denies without prejudice OnPoint's motion to strike. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the OnPoint. Granados asserts six claims in her First Amended Complaint (FAC). Granados alleges that OnPoint violated the federal Electronic Fund Transfers Act (EFTA), by: (1) refusing to reimburse Granados for funds that she lost due to fraudulent transactions; (2) attempting to enforce contract terms that limit Granados' consumer rights beyond what the EFTA allows; and (3) failing to notify Granados of her statutory right to access documents that OnPoint relied on to deny the dispute. Granados also alleges that OnPoint: (4) breached its contractual obligations by denying Granados' fraud dispute without investigating; (5) violated Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), Oregon Revised Statutes section 646.608, by misrepresenting the nature of OnPoint's banking services; and (6) was unjustly enriched by its refusal to credit Granados for her losses due to fraud. Granados brings this sixth claim, labeled "restitution," in the alternative to her fourth claim for breach of contract. OnPoint is a credit union that conducts business in Oregon. A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MDhP5d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Sugerman, Esq. Nadia H. Dahab, Esq. SUGARMAN LAW OFFICE 707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97205 - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10004 The Defendant is represented by: Kimberley Hanks McGair, Esq. FARLEIGH WADA WITT 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 - and - K. Issac deVyver, Esq. Karla L. Johnson, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP Tower Two-Sixty, 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - and - Jeffrey Paul Ehrlich, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20006 PANERA LLC: Chan Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Angel Men Chan, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PANERA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BEVERLY NGUYEN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09024 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04194. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following nine causes of action on behalf of himself and a class of individuals he seeks to represent: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin D. Reese, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Kevin.Reese@jacksonlewis.com - and - Karen Luh, Esq. Judy Kang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Karen.Luh@jacksonlewis.com Judy.Kang@jacksonlewis.com PARADIES SHOPS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Class Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that the Paradies Shops LLC must face a proposed class action alleging it failed to protect the personal information of more than 76,000 current and former employees that was exposed in an October 2020 data breach, after a federal appeals court overturned a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit. Plaintiff Carlos Ramirez sufficiently pleaded that Paradies had a duty to protect the personal information it required employees to provide, and that the risk of harm from a data breach was foreseeable, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said. [GN] PHILIP JAMES METSCHAN: Bankruptcy Court's Abstention Order Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE PHILIP JAMES METSCHAN, Debtor. SHAY, Creditor-Appellant v. HOFFMAN, Trustee-Appellee, Case No. 22-cv-05447-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California affirms the bankruptcy court's order granting the Timothy Hoffman's motion to abstain from adjudicating the balance of Christina Shay's claim. Two years ago, Metschan filed a petition for a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Hoffman was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee and several creditors filed timely claims against the bankruptcy estate. Another creditor, Metschan's ex-wife Shay, filed an untimely and unsecured claim with six different parts. In general, a late claim is only paid if there are funds left after paying any timely claims in full. But Shay's claim included a domestic support obligation, which is given priority even if filed late. After the trustee objected to Shay's claim, the bankruptcy court allowed three of its six components, including the priority domestic support obligation (although in a lower amount than Shay had sought). The court then directed the parties to attempt to settle the dispute over the rest of Shay's claim, including about $37,000 in long-term incentive payments and bonuses from Metschan's work at Pixar, about $4,000 in class action proceeds, and about $8,000 in pre-petition attorney's fees. Settlement talks failed, and the trustee moved for the court to abstain from adjudicating the balance of Shay's claim. He requested that the court instead directs him to commence an interpleader action in state family court to determine whether the estate's remaining funds should go to Shay or to Metschan. Further bankruptcy litigation would have quickly depleted the estate: After fully paying Shay's priority domestic support, the other creditors' timely claims, and the two allowed but non-priority components of Shay's claim (as well as paying the bankruptcy trustee and his counsel), there would be about $24,000 left in the estate. Shay contends she is entitled to about twice that amount, while Metschan believes she is entitled to none of it. The trustee, having examined Shay's claim, also believes she is entitled to little or nothing. Shay expects that litigating the balance of her claim will require further discovery and a multi-day evidentiary hearing, for which the bankruptcy estate would be required to pay the trustee's legal fees. The moment those fees exceeded $24,000, the allowed claims -- including the already-allowed parts of Shay's claim -- would no longer be paid in full. And, of course, it would then no longer matter whether Shay prevailed on the merits, because there would be no money left to recover. Given the circumstances, the bankruptcy court granted the motion to abstain. Shay appealed. Shay advances three categories of arguments for reversing the decision of the bankruptcy court. The first is that the bankruptcy court erred in sending the fight over the residual funds to state court. Shay says that a state court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter because the federal courts are vested with "exclusive jurisdiction" over a bankrupt debtor's property. Judge Chhabria holds that the bankruptcy court is engaged in the orderly distribution of the estate. And the suggestion that it is per se improper for a bankruptcy court to refer a matter to a state court is belied both by the bankruptcy code's abstention provisions, which explicitly contemplate abstention on matters of state law, and by a bankruptcy court's statutory power to lift the automatic stay. Additionally, the bankruptcy court did not gift the funds to the state court clerk to take home; either Shay or Metschan will ultimately receive the money. Shay is an allowed creditor and Metschan is the debtor, both categories listed in section 726. The bankruptcy court's order is therefore appropriate to carry out distribution under section 726, and it furthers the Bankruptcy Code's objective of fairly and efficiently distributing funds. Shay's second set of arguments concerns the bankruptcy court's direction that the trustee promptly takes steps to conclude his administration of this estate. She believes it was error for the bankruptcy court to kick off this process now because, as a practical matter, she thinks the resolution of the rest of her claim might affect the distribution of funds to other creditors and because, as a formal matter, her claim has not been fully allowed or disallowed. Judge Chhabria holds that without priority, even if Shay fully prevails on the merits, her untimely claim would be paid after the other creditors' timely claims. There would be no risk that paying the other creditors now would violate the principal that each creditor is entitled to an equitably proportional or pro rata share of property of the estate vis-a-vis similarly situated creditors for the simple reason that Shay is not "similarly situated" to creditors with timely claims. Shay's operative claim does not assert priority beyond the already-allowed domestic support obligation. Shay's remaining arguments are also unpersuasive. Shay argues that the abstention decision should be reviewed de novo, rather than under an abuse of discretion standard, framing it as a mixed question of law and fact with undisputed facts. Judge Chhabria finds it hard to see how that could be right. The abuse of discretion standard defers to the bankruptcy court's view of what to make of the facts, and how to weigh them against each other, even if everyone agrees on what those facts are. But even if that were the appropriate standard, he would rule the same way. Taken together, there are a few very good reasons to abstain, a few weak factors cutting both ways, and some truly neutral factors. The Court, like the bankruptcy court, would abstain. Finally, Shay argues that it was improper to abstain from ruling on half of her claim after ruling on the other half. She cites no authority suggesting that was an abuse of discretion or an error, and instead contends that the trustee waived (or rather, forfeited) any abstention argument when he objected to her claim. But, according to Judge Chhabria, it would have been futile for the trustee to file a motion to abstain while Shay's priority domestic support obligation was pending, because that portion of her claim obviously needed to be adjudicated by the bankruptcy court. When circumstances changed, the trustee promptly moved for the bankruptcy court to abstain. He did not forfeit the abstention argument by waiting until it was appropriate to raise. Faced with an unusual set of circumstances, the bankruptcy court chose a fair and efficient path forward. It did not commit legal error or abuse its discretion. Hence, Judge Chhabria affirms the abstention order. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxa852x from Leagle.com. PINK ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Solar Panel Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------- wavy.com reports that there might be some hope for homeowners involved with a now-defunct solar panel company. 10 On Your Side has been investigating Pink Energy, the company formerly known as Power Home Solar, for more than a year. Now, dozens of the company's customers are part of a class action suit, claiming they were misled by salespeople and company representatives who ended up selling them defective solar panel systems. The suit names not just Pink Energy, but the loan companies financing the solar panel systems, as defendants. Deborah Peters is one of those customers. She said her experience with the company was frustrating from the start. "Each time they came out [to install the system], nothing got done up there, aside from them walking around and making a mess and damaging my roof, apparently," Peters said. In the midst of customer complaints and public scrutiny, Pink Energy filed for bankruptcy last September. Now, Peters said, she is left paying the finance company for her $86,000 system - which she says doesn't work. With Pink Energy now out of business, she said she has nowhere to turn for customer service. "We pay our bills because I don't want to screw up our credit like that, but the panels aren't doing what we were promised," she said. 10 On Your Side spoke with multiple customers who claim they were told the solar panels would reduce or even eliminate their electric bills. But for most, that's not been the case. "The number of people who have been victimized is overwhelming," said Tom Domonoske with Consumer Litigation Associates. The firm is leading the charge against not just Pink Energy, but the finance companies billing customers for their systems. The lawsuit calls Pink Energy's sales tactics a "bait and switch." "The standard sales pitch misled consumers about the efficiency and effectiveness of the system being sold to them, misrepresented the federal solar tax credit as a guaranteed rebate that would come back to the consumer in one lump sum, and misrepresented the amount of the dollar benefit to the consumer," the lawsuit alleges. Domonoske points to a clause in the contract with loan companies - the claims and defense clause - which he said gives customers some recourse. "Whoever they have to send money to each month, they can say, you have to be responsible for the claims I have against power home and Pink Energy. And it says so right in the contract. It means they can assert their claims and even defenses to payment against whoever holds that credit obligation," he said. If you feel you were wronged by Pink Energy and are stuck in a credit agreement with a company, here is what Domonoske says to do: Document what happened to you in a letter and send it to the company you make your payments to on the loan. "They need to assert, 'I want you to solve this problem.' And it's then going to be the finance company's choice," he said. "Whether they honor the contract, the contract is very clear, the contract is unmistakable. All the consumers' claims run to the holder of the contract. "Now whether that holder is going to do the right thing, and by the right thing, I mean the lawful thing, which is just follow the words of the contract, that only gets done after the consumer asks the holder to do that." Last year, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares joined attorneys general from several states in asking the loan companies to suspend loan payments and accrual of interest for customers who financed the purchase of solar panels from the company Pink Energy. Miyares joined a coalition of eight other attorneys general in asking Dividend Solar Finance, GoodLeap, Cross Riverbank, Sunlight Financial, and Solar Mosaic to suspend billing. "Many Virginians were caught off-guard by Pink Energy's sudden bankruptcy. As a result, affected consumers are stuck paying loans on ineffective or unusable solar panels in addition to their electric bill. By joining this coalition, we're trying to ease the strain on Virginians' wallets while actively investigating the situation," Miyares said. Pink Energy is currently under investigation in Virginia and North Carolina. Neither office was able to comment on the ongoing investigation. [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss Calderon Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Lynda Calderon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-3326 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Calderon brings the putative class action against the Defendant, alleging that P&G's melatonin supplements contain significantly more melatonin than stated on the products' label. Calderon claims this violates state consumer protection laws. The Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint, arguing preemption and lack of standing, as well as failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Melatonin is a neurohormone that regulates the brain's sleep cycle. Millions of consumers take over-the-counter melatonin supplements to help them sleep. P&G's Vicks Pure Zzzs is a major U.S. brand of melatonin supplements, sold at retailers nationwide. P&G makes and sells several varieties of Pure Zzzs Melatonin. For each product, the label claims a specific amount of melatonin per serving. In approximately 2020, Calderon bought a bottle of Pure Zzzs Nightly Sleep at a Target or Walgreens in Chicago. Trusting the accuracy of the labeling and because she was buying a melatonin supplement that could alter brain chemistry, Calderon relied on the fact that P&G's actual dosage would match the recommended dosages. Calderon read and relied on the accuracy of the melatonin content on the label in deciding to buy the product. She says she would not have purchased the product, at the price she paid, if she knew that P&G was adding an unspecified amount of melatonin in excess of the amount needed to meet the label claims. She says the product is now worthless to her. In addition, Calderon experienced adverse side effects including grogginess and headaches. She suffered economic injury in the price premium she paid for the product, which, because of its inaccurate dosing and labeling, is substantially less valuable. To determine how much melatonin is in Pure Zzzs, a university mass-spectrometry laboratory tested bottles of Pure Zzzs, including Calderon's bottle. The products tested were the Pure Zzzs Melatonin + Chamomile & Lavender Gummies and the Pure Zzzs Nightly Sleep Tablets. Id. at ¶ 18. The results showed that the bottles were overdosed. Pure Zzzs Melatonin + Chamomile & Lavender Gummies had 163% more melatonin than was listed on the label, and Pure Zzzs Nightly Sleep Tablets had 150% more melatonin. Calderon alleges that if Pure Zzzs were reasonably dosed, the amount of melatonin at the end of the shelf life would be materially the same as the claim on the label, i.e., close to 100% of the claimed amount. She alleges, however, that Pure Zzzs melatonin has substantially more melatonin than needed to meet the labeling claim throughout the shelf life. Thus, Calderon claims that P&G uses false and misleading labeling and overcharges millions of consumers. Calderon asserts claims on behalf of herself and on behalf of nationwide, multi-state, and Illinois-based classes. She brings claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) (Count II); the state consumer protection laws of California, Connecticut, Maryland, Missouri, and New York (Count I); and for unjust enrichment or quasi-contract (Count III). Calderon also seeks class-wide injunctive relief. P&G moved to dismiss all of Calderon's claims. It argues that the complaint should be dismissed because (1) Calderon's claims are preempted by FDA regulations; (2) even if not preempted, Calderon fails to state a claim under ICFA; (3) Calderon does not have standing to assert claims based on all Pure Zzzs products; and (4) Calderon lacks standing to seek injunctive relief. First, Judge Rowland opines that Calderon may proceed on her claims only as to the Pure Zzzs Nightly Sleep. She finds that Calderon expressly alleges that the Pure Zzzs products are sold in several varieties and have a specific (and different) amounts of melatonin per serving. This is not a case in which there are no material differences relevant to the claims brought. Next, Judge Rowland holds that P&G has not met its burden to show that Calderon's claims are preempted. Accepting the complaint's allegations as true at this stage, Calderon has plausibly alleged a violation of the reasonable excess provision. Calderon's test results can also certainly be challenged at a later stage but it is sufficient for Calderon to rely on these results at the pleading stage. Judge Rowland then declines P&G's request to relinquish jurisdiction under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. She opines that courts are well-equipped to interpret FDA regulations concerning labeling and good manufacturing practices. In addition, P&G has not identified any relevant proceedings to which the Court should defer. Moreover, Judge Rowland finds that Calderon has stated an ICFA claim. She opines that how reasonable consumers understand a label is usually a question of fact not resolved on a motion to dismiss and Calderon has sufficiently alleged actual damages. However, Judge Rowland opines that Calderon lacks standing to seek injunctive relief because she does not have a likelihood of future injury. Calderon asserts that she could and would buy Pure Zzzs Melatonin again if the product was accurately labeled. But this does not overcome the fact that she is now aware of P&G's alleged deceptive practices and fails to provide a "concrete basis to conclude that the plaintiffs will or must purchase the product again in the future and be deceived. Judge Rowland therefore dismisses the demand for injunctive relief. Finally, Judge Rowland holds that Calderon has alleged that P&G received an unjust benefit at the expense of her purchase of P&G's allegedly false and misleadingly labelled product. She says this is sufficient to allege unjust enrichment. For the stated reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3dsffz from Leagle.com. PUBLIX SUPER: S.D. Florida Dismisses Amended Valiente Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Heriberto Valiente, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-22930-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants Publix's motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. The action arises from Valiente's dissatisfaction with Publix's honey-lemon cough drops. As set forth in Valiente's complaint, Publix manufactures, markets, and sells the honey-lemon, menthol-based lozenges. On June 4, 2022, among other times, Valiente purchased the cough drops, apparently attracted by the phrase "honey-lemon," the "pictures of these ingredients," and the statement "soothes sore throats." From these representations, Valiente believed that the product contained a non-negligible amount of lemon ingredients and expected that the product's soothing ability was due to its effect on bronchial passages. He acknowledges that the product's front label discloses its active ingredient through the statement, 'Menthol Cough Suppressant/Oral Anesthetic,' and notes that the product's ingredient list does not list any lemon ingredient. However, he posits that the product's labeling is nonetheless misleading to consumers like himself in two separate ways: i.e., by suggesting (i) that it contains a non-de minimis amount of lemon ingredients, and (ii) that it is capable of soothing bronchial passages. Valiente asserts that he and his proposed class of customers have been damaged because, had they known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it. Specifically, he maintains that the label's false and misleading representations allow Publix to sell the product at the premium price of no less than $1.79 per 30 lozenges, which is higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions. Notwithstanding this, Valiente intends to, seeks to, and will purchase the product again, once he is assured that the product's representations are consistent with its abilities, attributes, and/or composition. Based on these allegations, Valientes seeks both damages and injunctive relief, bringing six claims against Publix: violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; violation of the consumer fraud acts of the states encompassed by the proposed multi-state class (i.e., Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia); breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; negligent misrepresentation; fraud; and unjust enrichment. In response, Publix moves to dismiss Valiente's amended complaint on several grounds: lack of Article III standing; preemption; and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Publix argues that Valiente lacks standing to pursue either damages or injunctive relief. Judge Scola finds that Valiente has failed to establish Article III standing. He says Valiente has failed to allege an economic injury in fact based on his purchase of the honey-lemon cough drops, and he therefore lacks standing. Valiente's allegations as to why he has been deprived of the benefit of his bargain all boil down to his subjective, personal expectations of what the cough drops purported to do. This is not enough to plausibly allege a concrete economic injury for purposes of Article III standing. Because Valiente has failed to plausibly set forth the only injury alleged in his complaint -- i.e., monetary damages resulting from his purported overpayment for the cough drops -- his claim for injunctive relief must fail as well. In other words, it is not impossible that Valiente's claim for injunctive relief could proceed even where he failed to plausibly allege an economic injury. Even if Valiente had pled a plausible injury, he would still fail to establish Article III standing for purposes of injunctive relief because he has not alleged how he will be impacted by Publix's alleged wrongful conduct in the future. Because Valiente's allegations make clear that he will not purchase more of the purportedly deceptive products so long as the labelling does not meet his standards, he lacks standing to assert a claim for injunctive relief. Because he finds that Valiente lacks standing, Judge Scola declines to address Publix's additional arguments regarding preemption and Valiente's failure to state a claim for each cause of action. Judge Scola concludes that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Valiente has failed to plausibly plead Article III standing. He, thus, grants Publix's motion to dismiss. In addition, because a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits, he dismisses Valiente's amended complaint without prejudice. Finally, Judge Scola dismisses Valiente's complaint without leave to amend. Valiente requests leave to amend as an afterthought, at the end of his response in opposition to Publix's motion to dismiss, making the request both procedurally defective and lacking in substantive support under Eleventh Circuit Precedent. Judge Scola does not now afford Valiente another bite at the apple where he declined to follow the well-trodden procedural path toward amendment. The Clerk is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5h433739 from Leagle.com. QUOTE STORM: Bid to Dismiss Woodard TCPA Suit Held in Abeyance -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTIONETTE WOODARD, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUOTE STORM HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 23 C 55 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, holds in abeyance Quote Storm's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pending jurisdictional discovery and additional briefing. On Sept. 25, 2022, Woodard placed her residential number -- used only by her for residential purposes -- on the National Do Not Call Registry. Despite this act, she received three telemarketing calls on two days from a "630" area code. The calls promoted Quote Storm's lead generation services for health insurance. Woodard hired an attorney, Andrew Heidarpour, to investigate the telemarketing calls. Heidarpour contacted togetherhealth.com, a related entity to Beneyftt Technologies Inc., who responded that "Benefytt refers you to lead generator, Quotestorm Holdings, LLC, who routed a call to us." Woodard sued Quote Storm for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and related regulations. She alleges that Quote Storm violated the TCPA by contacting her despite the fact she placed her phone number on the Do Not Call registry. Her complaint also includes class-action allegations. Quote Storm filed four motions: a motion to strike class allegations; a motion to stay discovery; a motion to bifurcate; and a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In support of its motion to dismiss, Quote Storm appended the declaration of Juan Carlos Redero, the company's founder. He attests that Quote Storm does not telemarket and does not contract other parties to telemarket on its behalf. Quote Storm merely serves as a passthrough entity that connects callers, on the one hand, with service providers, on the other. Quote Storm did not make any telephone calls to Woodard's phone number. Judge Kendall only addresses the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The parties dispute whether Quote Storm's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) is instead a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) in disguise. Quote Storm properly styled its motion. It argues that Woodard lacks Article III standing because her injury -- the unwanted phone calls -- is not fairly traceable to the Defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and is not likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Judge Kendall finds that a factual dispute precludes resolution of the standing question. Overall, she says the evidence is scant and conflicting; it provides little clarity on the pivotal question of Quote Storm's role in placing the phone calls to Woodard. Where the evidence offered by the parties is inconclusive as to subject-matter jurisdiction, a district court can permit limited jurisdictional discovery. Doing so is appropriate in the case -- that way, the parties can understand whether Quote Storm actually caused Woodard's injury and whether the relief sought can be connected to the injury. For these reasons, Judge Kendall holds in abeyance Quote Storm's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pending jurisdictional discovery and additional briefing. Woodard can conduct jurisdictional discovery on the extent of Quote Storm's involvement in the calls and Quote Storm's relationship with the entity that made the calls. The deadline for jurisdictional discovery is Aug. 1, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yu7ezb5y from Leagle.com. RACK ATTACK USA: Hollman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rack Attack USA Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joshua Hollman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rack Attack USA Inc., Case No. 23CV034585 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Rack Attack -- https://www.rackattack.com/ -- is North America's premier rack specialty store for vehicle for bikes, skis, boards, boats, ladders, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com REBEL CREAMERY: Class Certification Bids Due April 4, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA DAVIS, et al., v. REBEL CREAMERY LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-04111-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered a case management order as follows: Deadline to Seek Leave to Amend Pleadings Aug. 24,2023 Class Certification Fact Discovery Cutoff Feb. 1, 2024 Class Certification Expert Disclosures Feb. 12, 2024 Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Feb. 26, 2024 Class Certification Expert Discovery Cutoff Mar. 29, 2024 Class Certification Motions Deadline Apr. 4, 2024 Class Certification Opposition Briefs Deadline May 2, 2024 Class Certification Reply Briefs Deadline Jun 6, 2024 Hearing on Class Certification Motions Jun. 27, 2024 Rebel Creamery is a food and beverage manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IOjhkd at no extra charge.[CC] RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Final Settlement Distribution Bid OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ Restoration Robotics 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 15, 2023, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the final distribution of settlement motion of the consolidated shareholder class suits on February 17, 2023. In 2018 and 2019, four putative shareholder class action complaints were filed against Restoration Robotics, Inc., certain of its former officers and directors, certain of its venture capital investors, and the underwriters of the initial public offering ("IPO"). Two claims, captioned Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 18CIV02609, and Li v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 19CIV08173 (together, the "State Actions"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, and assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15of the Securities Act. Two additional claims, captioned Guerrini v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712 -EJD and Yzeiraj v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18 -cv- 03883 -BLF (together, the "Federal Actions"), were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaints in both the State Actions and Federal Actions alleged, among other things, that the Restoration Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. A settlement in the Federal Actions was granted final approval in the District Court on September 9, 2021. A hearing on Plaintiff's motion for final distribution of the settlement funds in the Federal Actions was held on February 16, 2023, and the District Court granted the motion for final distribution on February 17, 2023. Restoration Robotics, Inc., a medical device company, develops and commercializes image-guided robotic systems in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. RISKIFIED LTD: S.D.N.Y Dismissed Class Suit Over IPO Disclosures ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shweta Watwe at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Riskified Ltd., a software company that helps merchants avoid fraud and chargebacks, shook off a potential shareholder class action accusing the company of omissions and misstatements during its July 2021 initial public offering. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the company's motion to dismiss on June 2 because its disclosures were "robust." Additionally, the statements the shareholders said were misleading are clear when read in context, the court said. Shareholders filed the securities fraud action on May 2, 2022, after Riskified's share price fell to 70% of the IPO price.[GN] SCALESGEAR.COM LLC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scalesgear.com, LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Scalesgear.com, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04483 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Scales Gear -- https://www.scalesgear.com/ -- is an online store that offers apparel for outdoors and fishing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a New York, NY 10022 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com SEMI-TROPIC COOPERATIVE: Martinez Class Settlement Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FABIAN CABALLERO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SEMI-TROPIC COOPERATIVE GIN & ALMOND HULLER, INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-01581-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class settlement order granting in part the Plaintiff's requests for attorneys' fees and a class representative service payment. -- The class is defined as follows: "Any individual who worked for Semi-Tropic in the State of California as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee at any time between November 5, 2015 and June 3, 2021." -- Mr. Edgar Villela Lizorraga is excluded from the Settlement Class. -- The PAGA award in the amount of $50,000.00 from the Gross Settlement Amount, including payment of $37,500.00 to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $12,500.00 to aggrieved employees, is approved. -- The request for a class representative service payment for the Plaintiff is granted in the amount of $2,500.00. -- Class Counsel's motion for fees is granted in the modified amount of 20 percent of the gross settlement fund, which totals $120,000.00. -- Class Counsel's request for litigation costs is granted in the amount of $10,527.33. -- Settlement Administration costs in the amount of $5,000.00, to be paid from the gross settlement fund, are approved. -- The action is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as otherwise provided by the Settlement and ordered by the Court. The Plaintiff is a former, non-exempt employee of the Defendant. The Plaintiff reports that he performed "janitorial work and moving and sorting loads of almonds for shipment." The Plaintiff asserts that "the Defendant's business runs twenty-four hours a day processing almonds," and the nature of the job required "someone always be present to monitor the machines." Semi-Tropic is a Wasco, CA based private company whose line of business is Cotton ginning services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43rHi8s at no extra charge.[CC] SPENCER GIFTS LLC: Sierra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spencer Gifts, LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Ruelas Sierra, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spencer Gifts, LLC, Case No. BCV-23-101673 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Spencer Gifts LLC -- https://www.spencersonline.com/ -- doing business as Spencer's, is a North American mall retailer with over 600 stores in the United States and Canada.[BN] STEFAN LOBLE LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stefan Loble, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Stefan Loble, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04491-JMF (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stefan Loble, LLC doing business as Bluffworks -- https://shop.bluffworks.com/ -- creates versatile travel clothes designed to go anywhere and still look great.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: June 27 Hearing on Class Cert Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID OH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNVALLEYTEK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00866-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Parties agree and stipulate to the following proposed hearing dates for the motion for class certification, subject to the Court's approval: 1. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be advanced to June 27, 2023, or alternatively; 2. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be continued to July 18, 2023, or another date available date set by the Court. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43ud7xr at no extra charge.[CC] SYSCO CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that Sysco Corp. failed to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) belonging to more than 71,000 individuals during a data breach earlier this year, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Joseph Trotter claims Sysco, by virtue of obtaining, collecting, using and deriving a benefit from the PII, had "assumed legal and equitable duties" to protect it from "unauthorized access and intrusion." Trotter argues that, despite this alleged duty, Sysco failed to protect his and other class members PII due to negligence, and/or careless acts and omissions on behalf of the wholesale corporation. "Defendant . . . intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded," the Sysco class action states. Trotter wants to represent a nationwide class and Wisconsin subclass of individuals who got a notice from Sysco on or around May 3 and May 5 that their PII was accessed and/or acquired during a data breach. Sysco waited too long to disclose data breach, says class action Trotter argues Sysco also waited too long to disclose the data breach by allegedly waiting around two months to report it to affected individuals and the states' attorneys general. "As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft," the Sysco class action states. Trotter argues the PII -- which included names, Social Security numbers, account numbers and other information -- exposed during the data breach can be sold on the dark web, placing those affected at risk of personal, social and financial harm for the rest of their lives. Sysco is accused of breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract and negligence. Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of actual, consequential and nominal damages for himself and all class members. A former Sysco employee filed a separate class action lawsuit in 2020, arguing the company failed to sufficiently inform them about their right to continued health care under Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) coverage. Were you affected by the Sysco data breach? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Joe Kendall of Kendall Law Group PLLC, Gary Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Brandon M. Wise of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP. The Sysco data breach class action lawsuit is Trottier, et al. v. Sysco Corp., Case No. 4:23-cv-01818, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.[GN] TAIJI ORIENTAL: Yang Seeks FLSA Conditional Collective Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YUCHEN YANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TAIJI ORIENTAL SPA NJ CORP. d/b/a Taiji Oriental Massage; TAIJI ORIENTAL BODYWORK & FOOT RUB CORP. d/b/a Taiji Oriental Massage; and ZHANG TAIJI SPA INC. d/b/a Taiji Oriental Massage; FENGHUA ZHAO; and DEYU SUN, Case No. 2:22-cv-01617-EP-JSA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); 2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of: "ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time from March 22, 2019 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so- orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when the Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later;" 3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records; 4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of dissemination of the notice and its translation; 5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice on the Plaintiffs' counsel's website; 6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may also be published to social media groups specifically targeting the Chinese and English-speaking American immigrant worker community; 7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace; 8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at the Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in newspaper should the Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in English, and Chinese and English; 9. equitable tolling statute of limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in Period; 10. permitting discovery of class information of all potential collective and class members in a bid to determining whether this case may proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 11. granting leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in anticipation of adding opt-in plaintiff(s) and allegations pertaining to putative opt-in plaintiff(s)' New Jersey Wage and Hour Law claims; and 12. granting such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. Taiji Oriental offers shiatsu Massage, aromatherapy Massage, hot stone, reflexology, European facial, deep cleaning facial, deep tissue massage, and Swedish massage. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45zGwbv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Schweitze, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 TAILORED LIVING CHOICES: Basham Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Genevieve Basham and Jennifer Raper, individually and on behalf of all current and former similarly situated employees and/or all aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California v. TAILORED LIVING CHOICES, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV001795 was removed from the the Superior Court of the State of California, Napa Count, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02678. The First Amended Complaint alleges the following ten causes of action against Tailored Living: Failure to Pay Minimum and Regular Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure to Indemnify All Necessary Expenditures; Failure to Maintain Accurate Records; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due and Upon Separation of Employment; Violation of Business & Professions Code; Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act – Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act – Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation, all in violation of Labor Code and sections of the applicable IWC Wage Order.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sharon O. Rossi, Esq. Emily A. Murphy, Esq. ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL 311 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.956.2828 Facsimile: 415.956.6457 Email: srossi@rjo.com emurphy@rjo.com TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Certifies RICO Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- A federal court unsealed an order that certified a national multi-billion dollar class action against Takeda Pharmaceutical Company and Eli Lilly and Company, alleging that the companies violated the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by concealing the risk of Actos and bladder cancer. The Hon. John W. Holcomb appointed R. Brent Wisner and Michael L. Baum of Wisner Baum, LLP and Christopher L. Coffin of Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP as national class counsel. The class consists of third-party payers in the United States that purchased Actos prescriptions between July 1, 1999 and September 17, 2010. hat You Need to Know: Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. is the first non-settlement national RICO class action lawsuit certified against Big Pharma. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company and Eli Lilly and Company allegedly conspired to hide the risk of bladder cancer associated with Actos (pioglitazone) because they knew that many prescribers and patients would not use the medication if they knew the truth. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert on the bladder cancer risk, Actos sales fell by 80%; the costs of those excess sales were born by third-party payers. Experts say the damages under RICO could reach $7 billion or more. This case already created Ninth Circuit precedent in 2019, when it held that civil RICO claims could be brought against pharmaceutical companies. This is another watershed decision. The pharmaceutical industry is now on notice that, under certain circumstances, they can now be exposed to civil RICO liability on a class-wide basis. Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund serves as class representative. Painters is a Minnesota union health fund that functions as a third-party payer of health and welfare benefits for covered members and their families. Painters reimburses members for drugs submitted by pharmacies and healthcare providers covered under the plan. Painters is the first ever class action against a pharmaceutical company to be certified under the civil RICO statute, which can award plaintiffs "treble damages" caused by the defendants. With damages trebled, the case could reach $7 billion or more. "We appreciate the Court's hard work in drafting such a detailed and careful order," said R. Brent Wisner, attorney for the classes. "It's a thoughtful order -- one we have come to expect from Judge Holcomb. While this is the first pharmaceutical class to ever be certified under the federal civil RICO statute, the result should come as no surprise. It is rooted in well-established Ninth Circuit precedent and, frankly, commonsense. We will now be able to get this case to trial on behalf of a national class. It is about time we held Takeda and Lilly accountable for exposing millions of Americans to a carcinogen without their consent. Fraud should not pay -- the use of civil RICO will help ensure that doesn't happen here. And, with a national class, the full scope of their corporate malfeasance will be tried together in one case."[GN] TARGET CORP: May Face Class Suits From Investors, Says Elon Musk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ariel Zilber at New York Post reports that Elon Musk expects retail giant Target to be hit with class-action lawsuits from investors after the value of the company sunk more than $15 billion since the chain's controversial "PRIDE" collection sparked calls for a boycott. Musk, the Tesla mogul and world's second richest person, reacted on Twitter to a tweet by conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, who wrote: "BREAKING: JP Morgan just downgraded Target's stock, after its longest losing streak in 23 years citing 'too many concerns rising'." "Happy Pride Month Target!!" Kirk tweeted. Kirk was reacting to JPMorgan's decision to downgrade the company's stock from "neutral" to "overweight" in a note, citing the retailer's exposure to millennials. The bank also cited "controversies" involving Target -- namely the outrage sparked by the company's LGBTQ-friendly "PRIDE" collection. "Won't be long before there are class-action lawsuits by shareholders against the company and board of directors for destruction of shareholder value," Musk tweeted in response to Kirk. Kirk replied to Musk by encouraging legal action against the company, writing: "97% of Americans would prefer depoliticized corporations to the hyperpolitical ones of today." "Shareholders should organize to make this happen." The Post has sought comment from Target. A new report over the weekend found that Target funded a nonprofit that calls for shutting down Mount Rushmore because the landmark is a "symbol of white supremacy," demilitarizing the "violent" US military and imposing sanctions on Israel. The "cheap chic" discount retailer continues to face backlash over LGBTQ-friendly kids clothing. In the last month, the stock price has fallen by nearly 17%. Target and Bud Light recently came under fire for their efforts to appeal to the LGBTQ community, only to come under more fire when they tried to backpedal. Target has long marketed to the LGBTQ community. But it recently found itself at the center of the bullseye when angry customers tipped over Pride displays and threatened staff in some stores. Target wound up removing certain items, to the dismay of LGBTQ supporters. Six weeks earlier, transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney revealed on social media that Bud Light had sent her a commemorative can emblazoned with her picture. Boycott threats immediately followed. The backlash has produced real consequences. In the month ending May 13, Bud Light's US sales were down 23%, according to Bump Williams Consulting. Target's shares have plunged 20% since mid-May, wiping away $15 billion in market value, although that's partly due to investor concerns about inflation's impact on shoppers.[GN] THRIFT SAVINGS: Participants File Class-Action Over System Update ----------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Friedman at federalnewsnetwork.com reports that federal employees are seeking damages from the agency in charge of the Thrift Savings Plan, claiming the major update last summer from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board and Accenture Federal Services resulted in significant harm to TSP participants. Seven TSP participants, who filed a class-action lawsuit, alleged that FRTIB and AFS, along with AFS' contracting partner Alight Solutions, failed to give participants the services that the contract, industry standards and federal law required. The legal action, coming exactly one year after the 2022 update, follows a long series of participants' complaints, concerns and frustrations with the new system. TSP has over 6.5 million members and more than $838 billion in assets. Though the exact size of the class is unknown, the plaintiffs said they "believe that the class consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of persons and entities that were harmed by defendants' conduct." Officials from AFS and FRTIB, whom Federal News Network got in contact with, both declined to comment on the pending litigation. Severe technical problems in the weeks and months following the launch of the "Converge" update led to longer times for processing loans, withdrawals, death benefits and more, the plaintiffs alleged. The participants said AFS and Alight's lack of preparations led to the issues with the services TSP is required to provide to federal employees and retirees. The processing challenges, which went on for weeks, and in some cases months, caused participants to struggle to get time-sensitive loans and withdrawals processed. Because of the delays, some TSP participants went with private loan providers instead, taking on much higher interest rates. The participants said the delays in processing loans, withdrawals and death benefits also differed from the promised timelines detailed on TSP's website. For example, despite TSP's website stating that loans are typically processed within three days, many participants experienced much longer processing times after the update. "Since AFS and Alight became the TSP recordkeepers in 2022, TSP participants who have applied for and were approved for TSP loans have not received their funds within three days, or even three months in some cases," the plaintiffs alleged. "Indeed, TSP participants have reported that funds were deducted from their accounts, but they never received the proceeds." Similar processing delays occurred for those seeking withdrawals, including hardship withdrawals, as well as death benefits. Soon after the rollout last summer, many TSP participants said they were also unable to name a beneficiary in the new system. As a result of the delays in TSP services, the plaintiffs alleged that many participants suffered damages, and are now seeking relief from FRTIB and the two federal contractors. "What makes these problems all the more wrong is that they were foreseeable, avoidable and of the defendants' own doing," the participants said in the class-action lawsuit. "Military personnel, veterans and federal employees are stuck waiting for money they timely and properly requested, and that TSP promised to them, while bills and other expenses continue to pile up." What happened with the Converge update? After 18 months of preparation, the recordkeeper transition modernized TSP's IT infrastructure, call center system and cybersecurity protocols, as well as made front-facing changes, including a brand new My Account website, a mobile app, a mutual fund window and an online chatbot. But the update was riddled with technical difficulties, ultimately leading to a skyrocketing number of calls to customer service. After the launch, many participants were left on hold for hours at a time, often with no answers or solutions. FRTIB awarded the recordkeeping contract to AFS in 2020, which charged the contractor with maintaining eligibility records, managing payroll data, processing transactions, issuing account statements, providing online account access and providing customer support. After the tumultuous launch, AFS apologized for the rollout of Converge, promising to correct errors and continue to make improvements as needed. AFS said it has taken action to resolve the problems, and promised more improvements are on the way. Participants, on the other hand, have made other efforts to push back against the TSP system overhaul, including by reaching out to their representatives. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), repeatedly called on FRTIB to fix the issues, which eventually led to the Government Accountability Office agreeing to audit and publish an upcoming report on the rollout. GAO officials have said their work is now underway, and the agency will complete their audit of TSP by early 2024. Sauder Schelkopf, one of the law firms that helped file the lawsuit on behalf of TSP participants, said many individuals were negatively impacted by the TSP update. "Our clients, all of whom are current or former military members or federal employees, suffered significant financial hardship because of the Thrift Savings Plan system implementation in June 2022. In many instances, they were simply trying to withdraw their own money from the TSP," said Joseph Sauder, a plaintiff attorney at Sauder Schelkopf, in a press release. The law firm is asking TSP participants who have "experienced excessive wait times for TSP to move your investments and suffered a loss," to contact Sauder Schelkopf attorneys. The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial, and calling for an award of appropriate damages, as well as a declaration that FRTIB, AFS and Alight are financially responsible for participants' losses. "AFS and Alight completely failed to deliver a fully operational system on June 1, 2022, or for months thereafter," the plaintiffs alleged. "As a result of defendants' seriously deficient and inoperable TSP management system and operations, plaintiffs and TSP participants have been damaged."[GN] TIFCO INDUSTRIES: Alcala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tifco Industries Inc., et al. The case is styled as Susan Alcala, all others similarly situated v. Tifco Industries Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 23CV002484 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Tifco Industries, Inc. -- https://www.tifco.com/ -- distributes industrial supplies. The Company offers fasteners, power and cutting tools, abrasives, hardware, hydraulic testing, and welding services.[BN] TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Phan Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the case as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to comply with California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. The Plaintiff asserts that class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) because the Class that the Plaintiff seeks to certify is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The Plaintiff also asserts that class certification is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy. The Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that: 1. Certifies the case as a class action with the Class and Sub- Class defined as follows: The Class: All (1) owners, or (2) beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of the Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued in California before 2013 that the Defendant lapsed or terminated for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013 without first complying with all the requirements of Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. The Elder Abuse Sub-Class: "All members of the Class who were also 65 years of age or older at the time their policy lapsed or terminated. 2. Appoints the Plaintiff Dung M. Phan as the Class Representative. 3. Appoints the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and Winters & Associates as Class Counsel. Transamerica operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers accidental and health insurance, annuity, and single premium. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43edqwJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net sball@einsurelaw.com UNAPOLOGETIC FOODS: Completion of Class Cert Discovery Due Nov. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Feyder Reuveni et al. v. Unapologetic Foods, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10930-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend or to join additional June 15,2023 parties shall be filed no later than: -- All class-certification-related discovery Nov. 16, 2023 shall be completed by: -- All fact discovery shall be completed Jan. 18, 2024 no later than: -- Initial requests for production of June 15, 2023 documents shall be served by: -- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33.3(a) June 15, 2023 of the Local Civil Rules of the Southern District of New York shall be served by: A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MFkGuG at no extra charge.[CC] UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Earl Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Elizabeth Earl, Jeanette Rock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00360 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on May 30, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00702-OAW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Unilever United States, Inc. -- https://www.unileverusa.com/ -- manufactures personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Sims Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lawanda Sims, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06140 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on May 30, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00708-JAM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Unilever United States, Inc. -- https://www.unileverusa.com/ -- manufactures personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN PHILLPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: 313-303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Hwy E., 2nd Fl. Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 772-7200 Fax: (856) 210-9088 Email: klaukaitis@shublawyers.com jshub@shublawyers.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Fax: (305) 676-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9189 Email: mroberts@bursor.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David C. Magagna Jr., Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Valdez Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA VALDEZ, RICKY ABEYTA, MARK FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL CHILDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01015-PAB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the case as a class action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23; 2. Directing Estes to produce a class list containing the names, dates of employment, mail and e-mail addresses, and phone numbers of the following Class Members: all regular full-time and/or part time L2L drivers in Colorado who did not cross state lines during their deliveries from March 16, 2020, to December 31, 2020 and worked overtime and/or more than 2 hours on any work shift; 3. Appointing Angela Valdez, Ricky Abeyta, Mark Franklin, and Michael Childs, as the Class Representatives; 4. Appointing David H. Miller and Victoria E. Guzman of the Wilhite & Miller Law Firm as Class Counsel; 5. Approving the Notice and Opt-Out forms attached as Exhibits 10 and 11; The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of: "all individuals who worked for the Defendant, Universal Logistics of Virginia, LLC, dba Estes Dedicated as regular fulltime and/or part time L2L drivers in Colorado and did not cross state lines during their deliveries from March 16, 2020 to December 31, 2020 and worked overtime and/or more than 2 hours on any work shift." The Plaintiffs allege that Estes violated their rights and the rights of the putative Class Members under Article XVIII, Section 15 of the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Wage Act (CWA), and the applicable Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order by failing to: (1) pay them overtime premium compensation for the hours worked in excess of 40 per week; and (2) authorize and permit them to take rest breaks. Universal Logistics is carrier company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3INzuGt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David H. Miller, Esq. Victoria E. Guzman, Esq. THE WILHITE LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden St. Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 839-1650 ext. 1090 Facsimile: (303) 832-7102 E-mail: dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com vguzman@wilhitelawfirm.com US TOOL GRINDING: Dinesen Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rex Alan Dinesen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. TOOL GRINDING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV02212 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00971. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges nine causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wags Timely During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; and Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Derek S. Sachs, Esq. George J. Theofanis, Esq. BARBER RANEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 916.313.3630 Email: Derek.Sachs@barberranen.com George.Theofanis@barberranen.com VERTEX AEROSPACE: Tamakloe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vertex Aerospace, LLC. The case is styled as Larry Tamakloe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vertex Aerospace, LLC, Case No. BCV-23-101674 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Vertex Aerospace -- https://vertexaerospace.com/ -- is an engineering services company headquartered in Maryland, specializing in thermal engineering design, analysis and test support for government and industry throughout the United States.[BN] WALMART INC: 8th Cir. Reverses Remand of Brunts Suit to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Nicholas Brunts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff-Appellee v. Walmart, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 23-1381 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reverses the district court's order remanding the case to state court. Brunts filed a class action lawsuit against Walmart in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County, Missouri. He alleged Walmart engaged in misleading and deceptive marketing practices by selling cough suppressants with dextromethorphan hydrobromide ("DXM") and a "non-drowsy" label. Walmart removed the case to the Eastern District of Missouri and Brunts moved to have the case remanded to state court. The district court remanded, finding Walmart had not met the Class Action Fairness Act's jurisdictional requirement of showing the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. See 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). The Eighth Circuit granted Walmart's petition to appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c). DXM is a common ingredient in cough suppressants. The FDA does not require products containing DXM to include a warning that it "may cause drowsiness." Walmart labels products containing DXM as "non-drowsy." Brunts argues the "non-drowsy" label is misleading because DXM is known to cause drowsiness. In 2022, Brunts sued Walmart on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased the products within the previous five years. The lawsuit alleges breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Brunts recognizes federal law preempts a suit that requires products with DXM to be labeled with the phrase "may cause drowsiness." He instead argues the inclusion of the "non-drowsy" label is misleading and in violation of Missouri law. The complaint asserts the misleading label caused class members to suffer injuries, pay for falsely labeled products, and enter into transactions they otherwise would not have entered into for the consideration paid. The complaint also states, class members are entitled to legal and equitable relief including damages, costs, attorneys' fees, recission, and/or other relief as deemed appropriate and due to the Defendant's illegal conduct, the Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of all funds improperly obtained by the Defendants. Walmart filed a timely motion to remove the case to the Eastern District of Missouri. Brunts subsequently filed a motion to remand the case to state court arguing Walmart did not show $5 million is in controversy. Walmart filed a brief in opposition to Brunt's motion and attached a declaration from Viral Shah, a Senior Manager for Regulated Products Development at Walmart. Walmart argued there is more than $5 million in controversy based on three possible remedies identified in the complaint. First, if a fact finder determines the Plaintiffs would not have bought the products but for the "non-drowsy" label, the court could order Walmart to pay an amount equal to the total amount of product sales during the relevant time period -- an amount Shah affirms is over $5 million. Second, if the court enjoins Walmart from selling the products, Shah states Walmart would lose over $5 million in sales nationwide during the development of a new label. Finally, Walmart states that if the Plaintiffs prevail, attorneys' fees could increase the amount in controversy by as much as 40 percent of any compensatory damages. The district court found Walmart did not show the amount in controversy is greater than $5 million because Walmart did not provide enough detail to show total sales exceeded $5 million or that the Plaintiffs could recover the full cost of the sales. It also concluded injunctive costs were not part of the amount in controversy and, even if injunctive costs were included, the declaration did not describe the expenses in enough detail. Finally, the court found Walmart did not specify the amount of the attorneys' fees with enough detail to be considered. Walmart filed a petition with the Eighth Circuit to appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c) -- a provision that gives the Court of Appeals the discretion to grant permission to appeal an order remanding a class action to state court. The Eighth Circuit granted Walmart's petition and review the district court's order to remand the class action de novo. The Eighth Circuit concludes the Shah declaration was sufficient to support a finding that sales exceeded $5 million. It shares some of the district court's frustration that the declaration merely stated Walmart sold more than $5 million of the product during the relevant time period. The addition of some detail or additional information may have helped to avoid this controversy. In the end, however, the Eighth Circuit believes the declaration was sufficient particularly when it is very plausible that a company the size of Walmart would have sold more than $5 million in cough suppressants in the state of Missouri over a period of five years. Brunts additionally argues the complaint's request for relief voluntarily limits any recovery to an amount less than the entire sale price. However, the Supreme Court has held a plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified. Therefore, the standard is not what Brunts argues he will ask for but what a fact finder could legally award. Because it finds that total sales satisfies the amount in controversy requirement, the Eighth Circuit need not discuss the inclusion of -- or sufficiency of the evidence for -- compliance costs or attorneys' fees. The Eighth Circuit reverses the district court's order remanding the case to state court because it finds Walmart showed that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. A full-text copy of the Court's May 24, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/n6azk3wn from Leagle.com. WELFARY LLC: Feroli Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Welfary LLC. The case is styled as Nathan Feroli, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. The Welfary LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00474-SLP (W.D. Okla., May 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Fax: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and – Manuel Santiago Hiraldo HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com WINCO HOLDINGS: Dowell Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Rose Leilani Dowell, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2301717 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00976. The Complaint alleged causes of action for: failure to pay wages for all time worked at minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked and failure to include additional remuneration when calculating overtime wages; failure to authorize or permit meal periods; failure to authorize or permit rest periods; failure to pay all accrued and vested vacation/PTO wages; failure to provide sick pay; failure to indemnify employees for employment-related losses and expenditures; failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; and unfair Business Practices in violation of business and professions code, all in violation of the Labor Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kristina M. Launey, Esq. Michael W. Kopp, Esq. Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: klauney@seyfarth.com mkopp@seyfarth.com pebsworth@seyfarth.com YOUTUBE LLC: Plaintiffs Lose Rule 23 Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SCHNEIDER, et al., v. YOUTUBE, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' requests for certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3), and for issues under Rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiffs' cursory request for a Rule 23(c)(4) certification is not well taken. They appear to regard it as something of a consolation prize in the event certification is denied under Rule 23(b)(3). That is not the case. The Plaintiffs did not explain why an issues class might advance the litigation as a whole, particularly in light of all the individualized questions that foreclosed certification of a (b)(3) class. Consequently, certification of an issues class is denied. YouTube asked to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs' proposed experts, Dr. Charles Cowan or Dr. Hal Singer, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. The Court did not rely on any of these opinions, or the work of either expert, in deciding the certification motion. According to plaintiffs, only a select group of "powerful" copyright owners are permitted to use Content ID, which allows them to readily identify infringing works and pursue anti-piracy measures. The Plaintiffs say that they and other "ordinary" copyright owners who do not have access to Content ID "are relegated to vastly inferior and time-consuming manual means" of searching for infringing videos on the massive YouTube platform. The Plaintiffs allege that this two-tiered system has allowed repeated infringement of their works. Specifically, plaintiffs say that after they submitted a takedown notice and YouTube removed the challenged video, "the same person or another person has subsequently re-uploaded the Plaintiffs' copyrighted feature-length films, music recordings, or books." The Plaintiffs ask to certify four classes under Rule 23(b)(3). The first proposed class is a "Registered Works Infringement Class." to be represented by Uniglobe and Schneider. It is defined as: "all persons who own copyrights in one or more works: 1) registered with the United States Copyright Office; 2) contained or used in a video that was displayed on YouTube and then removed from YouTube due to a successful Takedown Notice; and 3) contained or used in a video that was displayed on YouTube subsequent to the first successful Takedown Notice and then removed from YouTube as a result of either a second successful Takedown Notice made on or after July 2, 2019, or an allegation of infringement made in a court of law on or after July 2, 2019.” The second proposed class is a "Foreign Unregistered Works Infringement Class," to be represented by Uniglobe and AST. It is defined as: "all persons who own copyrights in one or more works: 1) first published outside the United States; 2) contained or used in a video that was displayed on YouTube and then removed from YouTube due to a successful Takedown Notice; and 3) contained or used in a video that was displayed on YouTube subsequent to the first successful Takedown Notice and then removed from YouTube as a result of either a second successful Takedown Notice made on or after July 2, 2019, or an allegation of infringement made in a court of law on or after July 2, 2019." The third proposed class is an "International Standard Recording Code Class" (ISRC class), to be represented by Schneider. It is defined as" "all persons who own copyrights in one or more digital form sound recordings of musical works that: 1) has been assigned an International Standard Recording Code (ISRC’; and 2) was a component of a video that was uploaded to YouTube that (a) did not include the assigned ISRC and (b) was removed from YouTube as a result of either a successful Takedown Notice made on or after July 2, 2019, or an allegation of infringement made in a court of law on or after July 2, 2019." The fourth proposed class is a "Clip Filename Class" (CLFN class), again to be represented by Schneider. It is defined as: "all persons who own copyrights in one or more works that: (1) had an associated Clip Filename (CLFN) field populated with copyright management information (CMI) and (2) was contained in a video uploaded to YouTube (a) either without the associated CMI metadata or with the CMI metadata altered and (b) that was removed from YouTube as a result of either a successful Takedown Notice made on or after July 2, 2019, or an allegation of infringement made in a court of law on or after July 2, 2019." YouTube is an American online video sharing and social media platform. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NdSpwt at no extra charge.[CC] ZAGE GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Conduct Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZAGE GROUP, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, d/b/a USA STUDENT DEBT RELIEF; DOUGLAS R. GOODMAN, in his official and individual capacity; and DORIS GOODMAN, in her official and individual capacity, Case No. 8:23-cv-00788-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. That Leave of Court be granted to conduct Class Certification and damages related discovery from ZAGE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a USA STUDENT DEBT RELIEF, DOUGLAS R. GOODMAN, and DORIS GOODMAN, including third-party discovery as necessary, in support of Class Certification and final damages judgment; 2. That the Court reserve jurisdiction on the issue of damages against ZAGE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a USA STUDENT DEBT RELIEF, DOUGLAS R. GOODMAN, and DORIS GOODMAN and to otherwise reserve ruling on a final damages determination against ZAGE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a USA STUDENT DEBT RELIEF, DOUGLAS R. GOODMAN, and DORIS GOODMAN until the completion of discovery and a ruling on Class Certification; and 3. That the Plaintiff be permitted to seek a final default judgment against ZAGE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a USA STUDENT DEBT RELIEF, DOUGLAS R. GOODMAN, and DORIS GOODMAN, both as to the individual the Plaintiff and the putative Class, upon completion of Class Certification and damages discovery from ZAGE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a USA STUDENT DEBT RELIEF, DOUGLAS R. GOODMAN, and DORIS GOODMAN and the Court’s ruling on Class Certification. On April 11, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his original Class Action Complaint against the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants systematically sent unsolicited prerecorded calls, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Do-Not-Call Registry provisions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OZU0HE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. Steven N. Saul, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com SSaul@JusticeEarned.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com ********* 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 ***