/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230619.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, June 19, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 122
Headlines
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid to File Reply Under Seal OK'd
AIH RECEIVABLES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Set Due March 8, 2024
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Partly OK's Casa Libre Bid for Class Cert
ALIERA CO: Duncan Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
ALLIANZ LIFE: Small Wins Bid for Class Certification
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 11, 2024
ASTRA SPACE: Continues to Defend Artery Putative Class Suit in N.Y.
ASTRA SPACE: Continues to Defend Newbold Putative Class Suit
BHG XXXIV: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Lawson Due Jan. 12, 2024
BIEGLER GMBH: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 14
CAPITAL ONE: Davis Files Bid for Class Certification
CARDONE CAPITAL: Stipulation on Class Cert Schedule OK'd in Pino
CASINO QUEEN: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert. Supplement
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due July 19
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Provide Supplemental Briefing Nixed
CORE SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Peng Putative Class Suit
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Bid for Class Certification Reset to August 14
CV SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Colette Class Suit in California
DELTA STAR: Parties Seeks to Continue Class Cert Bid Filing
DRESSER LLC: Response to Barton Class Cert Bid Due June 19
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 10, 2024
EF INSTITUTE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Grabovksy Set for Dec. 1
EL BANDIDO: Acevedo Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
ENSERVCO CORP: Continues to Defend Safe Class Suit in Colorado
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Celano Securities Suit
G.I. INDUSTRIES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 3, 2024
GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks July 17 Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Certification Order
GOOGLE LLC: Filing of Class Cert. Bid in Farwell Due Sept. 21
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Class Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to Oct. 18
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due July 14
HEALTHCARE VENTURES: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 12, 2024
HEWLETT PACKARD: Ross Compliance Hearing Set for Sept. 28
HG OHIO: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Miler Due Jan. 12, 2024
HIRERIGHT LLC: Hoffman Bid to Strike Judgment Partly OK'd
HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES: $650K Settlement in German Gets Initial Nod
HOUSTON NORTHWEST: Riley Files Appeal in Texas Appeals Court
HUMANA INC: Parties File Stipulation on Class Certification
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Bid for Initial OK of Finch Settlement Pending
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Blue Sky Suit Parties Engage in Settlement Talks
INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit
INTRUSION INC: Celeste Class Suit Settlement, Allocation Plan OK'd
IOWA HEALTH: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Tisdale Suit
ISM VUZEM: Hearing on Maslic's Bid for Class Certification Vacated
J.M. SMUCKER: Court Narrows Claims in Humphrey Suit
JACOBO FARM: Bid to Decertify Class in Gomez Nixed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: SDCERA Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
JOSH STEIN: Must Respond to Initial Injunction Bid by June 30
JOSHUA STEIN: June 30 Extension for Class Cert. Response Sought
K.B. WALLWORX: Castillo Seeks Conditional Certification of Action
KEVIN CARR: Smith Bid for Class Certification Tossed
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Dismiss Hagins Suit Tossed
KOLD TRANS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 26, 2024
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Isaacs
LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend Drug Pricing Putative Class Suit
LAWRENCE O'TOOLE: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
LAWRENCE O'TOOLE: Plaintiffs File Bid for Final OK of Class Cert.
LEPRINO FOODS: Scheduling Conference Set for June 21 in Bates
LIFE360 INC: Continues to Defend E.S. Purported Class Suit
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 9
LOTTERY.COM: Reply Brief on Bid to Junk Preston Suit Due June 20
LULIFAMA.COM: Pop Bid to Compel Better Discovery Replies Partly OKd
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Seeks to Preclude Introduction of Evidence
MAKITA USA: Court Narrows Claims in May First Amended Complaint
MAURA HEALEY: Seeks to Strike Class Cert Attachments in Simmons
MDL 2573: Court Dismisses London Silver Fixing Antitrust Suit
MDL 2573: Court Dismisses MSL Antitrust Suit
MDL 2573: Court Dismisses Nalven Antitrust Suit
MDL 3073: Eleven Data Breach Suits Consolidated in W.D. Mo.
MDL 3074: Six Suits Consolidated in Wiretapping Litigation Row
MDL 3076: Eight Suits Consolidated in FTX Cryptocurrency Row
MDL 3077: Panel Denies Transfer of 9 Suits
MIDDLESEX WATER: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 23, 2024
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Schaub Securities Suit
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
NEW YORK, NY: Case Management Plan Entered in UPOA Class Suit
NEW YORK, NY: O'Leary Reply to Class Cert Bid Due June 30
NOAH'S NEW: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 21, 2024
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Files Bid for Class Certification
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Seeks to File Documents Under Seal
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Renewed Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Pending
NOVARTIS INC: Settlement in Exforge Antitrust Suit for Court OK
NUTANIX INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit
NUTANIX INC: Final Settlement Hearing in Norton Suit Set for Oct. 4
PAUL MOSS: Bid to Dismiss Pavelka Class Action Tossed
PHARMACARE US: Corbett Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
PHENOMEX INC: Hearing on Bid to Junk Ng Class Suit Set for June 22
PIONEER BANCORP: Continues to Defend Brandes Putative Class Suit
PIONEER BANCORP: Continues to Defend OML Class Suit
POINTSBET USA: Scheduling Order Deadline Extended in Gutman
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Berlanga Files Bid for Class Certification
PRIME CLASSIC: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Dimeglio Suit
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Bartee Suit Seeks Class Certification
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Curran Files Bid for Class Certification
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Bajjuri Class Suit
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Summary Judgment Opposition Due August 1 in Bush
SAN JOSE, CA: Court Junks NAACP SJ Reconsideration Bid
SB NORTHWEST: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Oct. 19
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Wasa Securities Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Cert. Oral Argument Set for July 13
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Claude Securities Suit
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Fung Securities Fraud Suit
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
TAMKO BUILDING: Plaintiffs Reply to Class Cert Bid Due July 26
TETRA TECH: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Sept. 1
TIREHUB LLC: Class Action Settlement in Jones Gets Initial Nod
TIVITY HEALTH: Parties Must File Mediation Notice by June 30
TMX FINANCE: Eslinger Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Filing Deadline
TMX FINANCE: Mahone Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline
TMX FINANCE: Ritter Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline
TMX FINANCE: Ross Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline
TORCH ELECTRONICS: June 30 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Sought
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 14
UMPQUA BANK: Bid to Exclude Class Notice OK'd in Camenisch
UNION CARBIDE: Class Cert. Replies in Sommerville Suit Due July 24
UNION CARBIDE: Responses to Class certification Bid Due July 5
UNION SECURITY: Completion of Discovery Depositions Due August 11
UNITED PARCEL: $1.37MM Class Settlement in Diaz Gets Initial Nod
UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
USAA FEDERAL: Parties in Bulls Seek Extension of Briefing Schedule
VALLEY BROOK, OK: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 28
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Court Junks Levine Class Certification Bid
VOLVO CARS: Class Cert Oral Argument in Middien to Proceed July 19
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
WAWA INC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition to Class Certification Bid
WESTCHESTER PARKWAY: Bid for Class Certification Due Jan. 12, 2024
WEXFORD HEALTH: Surles Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
*********
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid to File Reply Under Seal OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM and BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ADAPTHEALTH CORP. f/k/a DFB HEALTHCARE ACQUISITIONS CORP., LUKE
MCGEE, STEPHEN P. GRIGGS, JASON CLEMENS, FRANK J. MULLEN, RICHARD
BARASCH, JOSHUA PARNES, ALAN QUASHA, TERENCE CONNORS, DR. SUSAN
WEAVER, DALE WOLF, BRADLEY COPPENS, and DAVID S. WILLIAMS III, Case
No. 2:21-cv-03382-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III
entered an order granting the Lead Plaintiffs motion to file under
seal.
The Lead Plaintiffs are granted leave to file under seal the Reply
in Further Support of Lead the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
and certain exhibits.
Adapthealth provides patient-centered, healthcare-at-home
solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qkRKjU at no extra charge.[CC]
AIH RECEIVABLES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Set Due March 8, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK GENNUSA, v. AIH
RECEIVABLES, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00853-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Stephen R. Bough entered a scheduling order:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings shall June 30, 2023
be filed on or before:
-- Any motion to join additional parties June 30, 2023
shall be filed on or before:
-- All pretrial discovery authorized by the Feb. 29, 2024
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall
be completed on or before:
-- Each plaintiff shall designate any expert Nov. 24, 2023
witnesses it intends to call at trial on
or before:
-- Each defendant shall designate any expert Dec. 22, 2023
witnesses it intends to call at trial on
or before:
-- Each party shall designate any rebuttal Jan. 19, 2024.
expert witness it intends to call at
trial on or before:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class March 8, 2024.
certification shall be filed on or
before:
AIH is a third-party collection company that offers collection
management, files review, skip tracing, and recovery services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43D72iP at no extra charge.[CC]
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Partly OK's Casa Libre Bid for Class Cert
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASA LIBRE/FREEDOM HOUSE
et al., v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01510-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright,
II entered an order granting in part and denying in part
plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification:
-- The Court strikes the parties' filings at ECF Nos. 87 and 88.
-- The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. (ECF No. 58.)
Provisions claim:
The Court appoints Carlos Abel Hernandez Arevalo and Rene Isai
Serrano Montes as class representatives, and the Court appoints
Peter Schey and Sarah Kahn of the Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law as class counsel.
The Court further finds that the missed deadline claim is not
appropriate for class certification and denies the Motion to that
extent.
Furthermore, to provide the parties with an opportunity to amend
their summary judgment motions in light of this Order, the Court
ORDERS as follows:
-- Amended Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment must be filed no
later
than June 26, 2023.
-- Oppositions are due no later than July 10, 2023.
The Court will not certify the class for the purpose of the
Plaintiffs' missed deadline claim.
This is a putative class action challenging how the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) handle and process Special Immigrant Juvenile
(SIJ) petitions.
The Plaintiffs are six individuals who submitted petitions for SIJ
status and six organizations who provide legal and other assistance
to such individuals. The Defendants are Alejandro Mayorkas,
Secretary of DHS; Ur M. Jaddou, Director of USCIS; and USCIS
itself. the Plaintiffs now move to certify a class of SIJ
petitioners.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class as follows:
"All Special Immigrant Juvenile petitioners, except as to
members
of the certified class in the case entitled Moreno-Galvez v.
Cuccinelli, Case No. C19-0321RSL (U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington), who have submitted or will
submit
Petitions for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (Form
I-
360) (SIJ Petitions) with the USCIS, and whose SIJ Petitions
were
not or in the future are not adjudicated within 180 days of
being
filed, including but not limited to petitioners who were issued
a
Request for Evidence (RFE) or a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID)
causing delay in the processing of their SIJ petitions pursuant
to
8 C.F.R. section 204.11(g)(1)."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45UVQjb at no extra charge.[CC]
ALIERA CO: Duncan Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORYLN DUNCAN and BRUCE
DUNCAN, v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00867-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will ask the
Court on June 29, 2023, to enter an order preliminarily approving
the proposed class action settlement.
The Plaintiffs also seek approval the manner and form of class
notice.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CnzTM7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE
HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
E-mail: ele@sylaw.com
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH &
ANDERSON PLLC
5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204
Boulder, CO 80303
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com
- and -
Jerome P. Prather, Esq.
GARMER & PRATHER PLLC
141 North Broadway
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 254-9351
E-mail: jprather@garmerprather.com
- and -
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
2000 K Street NW, Suite 325
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
- and -
Nina Wasow, Esq.
FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN
& WASOW LLP
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 269-7998
E-mail: nina@feinbergjackson.com
- and -
James J. Varellas III, Esq.
VARELLAS & VARELLAS PLLC
360 East Vine Street, Suite 320
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 252-4473
E-mail: jayvarellas@varellaslaw.com
- and -
Michael David Myers, Esq.
MYERS & COMPANY PLLC
1530 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98102
Telephone: (206) 398-1188
E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com
ALLIANZ LIFE: Small Wins Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWANDA D. SMALL, v.
ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Case No.
2:20-cv-01944-TJH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter,
Jr. entered an order granting the motion for class certification.
The class shall be defined as all owners, or 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 non-payment of premiums in or after 2013 without
first complying with the requirements of Cal. Ins. Code sections
10113.71 and 10113.72.
The Court further ordered that there shall be two sub-classes,
defined as follows:
-- Sub-class 1:
"All owners of the Defendant's individual life insurance
policies
issued in California before 2013, with currently living
insureds,
that the Defendant lapsed or terminated for non-payment of
premiums in or after 2013 without first complying with the
requirements of Cal. Ins. Code sections 10113.71 and
10113.72."
-- Sub-class 2:
"All beneficiaries of the Defendant's individual life
insurance
policies issued in California before 2013, with deceased
insureds, that the Defendant lapsed or terminated for
non-payment
of premiums in or after 2013 without first complying with the
requirements of Cal. Ins. Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72.
In addition, th Court ordered that:
-- The Plaintiff Lawanda D. Small be, and hereby is, Appointed as
the named class representative.
-- Craig M. Nicholas of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and Jack B.
Winters, Jr. of Winters & Associates be, and hereby are,
Appointed as class counsel.
-- the motion to strike evidence be is, denied.
In 1990, the Plaintiff Lawanda Small's late ex-husband purchased a
$75,000.00 life insurance policy on his life [“the Policy”]
from LifeUSA Insurance Company, the predecessor to the Defendant
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. Small was an
additional insured and the beneficiary of the Policy. When Small
failed to make a premium payment in August 2016, Allianz terminated
the Policy.
Allianz Life operates as an insurance company. The Company provides
life, health, and disability insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45PBF6k at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 11, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEILANI KRYZHANOVSKIY,
individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a
proxy for the LWDA, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01292-BAM
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara A. Mcauliffe entered an order
granting joint stipulation continuing case schedule as follows:
1. The Class Certification Discovery Cutoff is continued to
November 28, 2023.
2. The Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion deadline is
January
11, 2024.
3. The Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification Motion
deadline is March 13, 2024.
4. The Plaintiff's Reply to Opposition to Class Certification
Motion deadline is May 31, 2024.
5. The Hearing on Class Certification is set for June 14, 2024.
Amazon.com Services provides e-commerce services. The Company
retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels,
and accessories.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WNrgE5 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq.
MAYALL HURLEY, P.C.
2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
Stockton, CA 95207-8253
Telephone: (209) 477-3833
Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
jbaysinger@mayallaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
lblas@gibsondunn.com
ASTRA SPACE: Continues to Defend Artery Putative Class Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Astra Space 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 Artery putative class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On February 9, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
styled Artery v. Astra Space, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00737
(E.D.N.Y.) (the "Artery Action").
On March 23, 2022, a second putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
styled Riley v. Astra Space, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01591
(E.D.N.Y.) (the "Riley Action").
On November 14, 2022, the Artery Action and the Riley Action were
consolidated into a single action (the "Securities Action"),
restyled In re Astra Space Inc. f/k/a Holicity Inc. Securities
Litigation, and Lead Plaintiffs were appointed.
On December 14, 2022, the Securities Action was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California under Case No. 3:22-cv-08875.
On December 28, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the Company and
several of its current and former officers and directors violated
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to
certain statements concerning the Company's projected launch
cadence and payload capacity goals.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities between
February 2, 2021 and December 29, 2021. Defendants moved to dismiss
on December 28, 2022. Briefing on that motion is expected to be
complete in June 2023.
The Company believes that the Securities Action is without merit
and intends to defend it vigorously.
stra Space, Inc. is a spacetech company. The Company focuses on
delivering a new generation of space services that is enabled by
new constellations of small satellites in low earth orbit and aims
to solve this problem with mass-produced dedicated orbital launch
system, consisting of small launch vehicles and mobile ground
infrastructure. Astra Space serves customers worldwide. [BN]
ASTRA SPACE: Continues to Defend Newbold Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Astra Space 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 Newbold putative class suit in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On May 20, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware styled Newbold v. McCaw et. al.,
Case No. 2022-0439 (the "Newbold Action").
The complaint alleges that Pendrell Corporation, X-icity Holdings
Corporation f/k/a Pendrell Holicity Holdings and certain former
officers, directors or controlling stockholders of Holicity, Inc.
n/k/a Astra Space, Inc., breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company in closing on the Business Combination. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of stockholders
of the Company's securities from June 28, 2021 through June 30,
2021.
Neither the Company nor any of its board members are parties in
this action. Mr. McCaw, who served as a former member of the
Company's board, is a defendant in this action, but the allegations
relate to periods prior to the Business Combination.
Astra is obligated to indemnify certain of the defendants in the
Newbold Action. The Company has tendered defense of this action
under its Directors' and Officers' Policy. The Company also
tendered defense of this claim under the tail policy it was
required to purchase in connection with the Business Combination.
The retention under the tail policy is $1.5 million. Due to the
early stage of this case, neither the likelihood that a loss, if
any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, can be determined.
Astra Space, Inc. is a spacetech company. The Company focuses on
delivering a new generation of space services that is enabled by
new constellations of small satellites in low earth orbit and aims
to solve this problem with mass-produced dedicated orbital launch
system, consisting of small launch vehicles and mobile ground
infrastructure. Astra Space serves customers worldwide. [BN]
BHG XXXIV: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Lawson Due Jan. 12, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lawson v. BHG XXXIV, LLC,
et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00150-CHB-EBA (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge
Edward B. Atkins entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. The Defendants shall Answer the Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Complaint within 21 days after the pending motion to dismiss
is
resolved.
2. The parties shall file any motion to join parties or amend
pleadings by December 22, 2023.
3. No later than January 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall file a
motion for class certification.
4. No later than February 16, 2024, the Defendants shall file
its
response to the motion for class certification.
5. No later than March 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall file any
reply.
6. If a hearing on class certification is desired, an
appropriate
motion shall be filed no later than March 1, 2024.
7. Fact discovery closes on June 3, 2024.
8. The parties shall conclude all expert depositions on reports
by
July 17, 2024.
9. Any rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures and reports
shall be tendered to the opposing party by August 2, 2024.
10. Any rebuttal expert depositions, if necessary, shall be
completed by August 30, 2024.
11. Expert discovery closes on September 20, 2024.
12. No later than March 29, 2024, counsel for the parties shall
complete all expert discovery.
13. The parties shall have to and including October 18, 2024, by
which to file all dispositive motions with response and reply
time as per Local Rule 7.1(c).
14. This action is assigned for a telephonic mid-discovery
conference on December 6, 2023. at 1:30 P.M.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43owetn at no extra charge.[CC]
BIEGLER GMBH: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 14
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Munderloh, et al.,
v. Biegler GmbH, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-08004-GMS (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge G. Murray Snow entered an order granting the Parties'
joint motion and modifying the Courts September 8, 2022, Case
Management Order as follows:
1. The deadline for the completion of July 17, 2023
fact discovery, including discovery
by subpoena, shall be:
2. The deadline for filing a Motion for August 14, 2023
Class Certification is:
Biegler GmbH develops, produces and distributes medical equipment
and disposable products for the healthcare industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Mfjm4 at no extra charge.[CC]
CAPITAL ONE: Davis Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE DAVIS, v. CAPITAL
ONE, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00903-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class
certification and appointment of class counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 26, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CkBimJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terry C. Frank, Esq.
TERRY FRANK LAW
6722 Patterson Avenue, Suite B
Richmond, VA 23226
Telephone: (804) 899-8089
Facsimile: (804) 899-8229
E-mail: terry@terryfranklaw.com
- and -
James S. Wertheim, Esq.
Michael C. Hartmere, Esq.
Thomas Alvord, Esq.
LAW HQ, PC
299 S. Main Street, #1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
E-mail: jim@lawhq.com
Michael.Hartmere@lawhq.com
Thomas@lawhq.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jon S. Hubbard, Esq.
Robert A. Angle, Esq.
Andrew B. Buxbaum, Esq.
Brooke K. Conkle, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
1001 Haxall Point
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 697-1200
Facsimile: (804) 697-1339
E-mail: jon.hubbard@troutman.com
robert.angle@troutman.com
andrew.buxbaum@troutman.com
brooke.conkle@troutman.com
- and -
Daniel JT McKenna, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-8500
Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
E-mail: mckennad@ballardspahr.com
CARDONE CAPITAL: Stipulation on Class Cert Schedule OK'd in Pino
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS PINO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. CARDONE CAPITAL, LLC,
GRANT CARDONE, CARDONE EQUITY FUND V, LLC, and CARDONE EQUITY FUND
VI, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-08499-JFW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
John F. Walter entered an order granting parties' joint stipulation
regarding discovery and the class certification schedule in light
of the Ninth Circuit's mandate providing for the filing of an
amended complaint, defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and the PSLRA's discovery stay.
The Court orders as follows:
-- The PSLRA's automatic stay of discovery and other proceedings
remains in effect until "the court has sustained the legal
sufficiency of the complaint."
-- The parties cannot conduct any discovery until resolution of
the
Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
second
amended complaint, "unless the court finds, upon the motion of
any party, that particularized discovery is necessary to
preserve
evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party."
-- The class-certification deadline contained in the Court's
Scheduling and Case Management Order, is vacated and does not
apply to this action.
-- Following the Court's decision on the Defendants' anticipated
motion to dismiss, if the PSLRA stay is lifted, the parties
shall
promptly meet and confer regarding an appropriate proposed
schedule governing the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification
and discovery.
-- Within one week of the Court's decision on the Defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss, if the PSLRA stay is lifted,
the
parties shall seek the Court's approval of a schedule
governing
class certification and discovery.
Cardone Capital operates as a real estate investment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42oEqse at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Steven Sklaver, Esq.
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
Raj Mathur, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mselzer@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
rmathur@susmangodfrey.com
CASINO QUEEN: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert. Supplement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM HENSIEK, et al., v.
BD. OF DIRECTORS OF CASINO QUEEN HOLDING CO., INC., et. al., Case
No. 3:20-cv-00377-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs Tom Hensiek,
Jason Gill, and Lillian Wrobel seek leave to file a supplement with
a single short document that will resolve one of the primary
arguments concerning their motion for class certification.
In opposing class certification, the Defendants argued that the
Plaintiffs' Counsel violated Illinois ethical rules by failing to
convey a settlement offer to the Plaintiffs.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 26, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45V0JbT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW ● Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Peter K. Stris, Esq.
Rachana Pathak, Esq.
Victor O’Connell, Esq.
John Stokes, Esq.
Colleen R. Smith, Esq.
Shaun Martin, Esq.
STRIS & MAHER LLP
777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 995-6800
E-mail: pstris@stris.com
rpathak@stris.com
voconnell@stris.com
jstokes@stris.com
csmith@stris.com
smartin@sandiego.ed
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due July 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE CROSSROADS GROUP, LLC,
et al., v. CITY OF CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00184-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge e J. Philip Calabres
entered a case Management Schedule order as follows:
-- Response to Written Discovery Requests: June 21, 2023
-- Class Certification Depositions: July 5, 2023
-- Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: July 19, 2023
-- Reply: July 26, 2023
The parties have presented competing options for how to proceed to
resolution of these various motions. The Plaintiffs describe their
preferred course in a motion. Specifically, they request that the
Court (1) order them to file a consolidated response to the
Defendants' opposition and motion to dismiss, and (2) stay the
deadline for that response until the Defendants provide specified
discovery.
Separately, the Plaintiffs suggest that the Court has the
discretion to decide the parties' motions on the merits before
class certification, and the Defendants appear to agree. Nor do the
Defendants oppose consolidation of briefing on the various motions.
Cleveland Heights is a diverse, progressive, vital suburb of
Cleveland just up the hill from University Circle.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MU4lCw at no extra charge.[CC]
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Provide Supplemental Briefing Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christy Palmer et al v.
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-06848-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order denying Cognizant's request for leave to provide
supplemental briefing.
The Court has also considered Cognizant's Response to the
Plaintiffs' notice of consent to severance. In its Response,
Cognizant asks for leave to provide briefing on the procedure for
Phase Two of the Teamsters framework before trial of Phase One
commences. At the class certification stage, the Court deferred
ruling on the procedure for Phase Two until after Phase One has
been tried.
At the May 16, 2023, Final Pretrial Conference, the Court ordered
supplemental briefing regarding (a) severance of the named the
Plaintiffs' individual claims and (b) trial of the amount of
punitive damages, if any.
On May 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs notified the Court that they
consent to severance of their individual claims and agree that
trial of the amount of punitive damages, if any, should be reserved
for Phase Two of the Teamsters two-part framework.
The supplemental briefing previously requested by the Court is
therefore unnecessary. The individual claims of the Plaintiffs
Christy Palmer and Jean-Claude Franchitti, and the non-class claims
of Edward Cox (failure to hire and failure to promote) and Vartan
Piroumian (failure to promote), shall be severed from the class
claims. By May 30, 2023, the parties shall meet and confer and
propose a date for the trial of the individual claims after Phase
One of the class claims has been tried.
Cognizant is a provider of information technology (IT), consulting
and business process outsourcing (BPO) services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qx9dpj at no extra charge.[CC]
CORE SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Peng Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Core Scientific 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 12, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Peng putative class suit in the United
States District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
In November 2022, plaintiff Mei Peng filed a putative class action
in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas,
Austin Division, asserting that the Company violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to disclose to
investors, among other things, that the Company was vulnerable to
litigation, that certain clients had breached their agreements, and
that this impacted the Company's profitability and ability to
continue as a going concern.
The Company denies the allegations contained in the complaint and
intends to vigorously defend its interests.
Core Scientific, Inc. is a large-scale operator of facilities for
digital asset mining and a premier provider of block chain
infrastructure, software solutions and services.
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Bid for Class Certification Reset to August 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fernandez v. CoreLogic
Credco, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01262 (S.D. Cal., Filed July 6,
2020), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller entered an order resetting
the in-person hearing on the Defendants Motion to Deny Class
Certification and the Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification
from June 5, 2023, to August 14, 2023.
The parties are advised to continue to monitor the docket between
now and the August 14th hearing, in the event that the court takes
the pending motions under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7.1.d.1.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
CoreLogic provides merged and specialized credit reports,
processing of credit and related transactions.[CC]
CV SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Colette Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences 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 Colette putative class suit in the
Central District of California.
On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw filed a
putative class action complaint in the Central District of
California, alleging the labeling on the Company's products
violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (the "Colette
Complaint").
On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Colette Complaint. Instead of opposing its motion, plaintiffs
elected to file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020.
On March 11, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that stayed
this proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the amended
complaint.
The portion of the proceeding that is stayed will remain stayed
until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promulgates rules that
govern cannabidiol products (the "FDA Rules").
However, on January 26, 2023, the FDA announced that it does not
intend to pursue rulemaking allowing the use of cannabidiol
products in dietary supplements or conventional foods.
As a result, on February 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a status report
with the Court asking to have the stay lifted.
The Company filed a written opposition.
The Court will likely set a hearing on the matter.
If the stay is lifted, management intends to vigorously defend the
allegations.
CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Consumer
Products. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in
Las
Vegas, Nevada.
DELTA STAR: Parties Seeks to Continue Class Cert Bid Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly-situated, v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties file stipulation extending the time for the
Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification:
1. The Plaintiff's time to file his motion for class
certification
is continued to November 17, 2023.
2. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
certification
shall be filed on or before December 18, 2023.
3. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class
certification shall be filed on or before January 17, 2024.
Delta Star manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile
transformers, and mobile substations.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CfMocq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Talia Lux, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
statavos@justicelawcorp.com
tlux@justicelawcorp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
Olga Savage, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (650) 645-9000
Facsimile: (650) 235-0398
E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com
Olga.savage@huschblackwell.com
DRESSER LLC: Response to Barton Class Cert Bid Due June 19
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barton, et al., v. Dresser
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00263 (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]
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 10, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clinger, et al., v.
Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01040 (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer entered an order scheduling
order:
-- Motion for Class Certification due: May 10, 2024
-- Opposition to class certification due: June 24, 2024
-- The parties' joint trial memorandum Jan. 6, 2025
is due by:
The nature of suit Torts -- Personal Property --
Diversity-Fraud.[CC]
EF INSTITUTE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Grabovksy Set for Dec. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grabovksy v. EF Institute
for Cultural Exchange, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11740 (D.
Mass., Filed Sept. 23, 2020), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' expert disclosures July 28, 2023
and reports by:
-- The Defendants' expert disclosures Sept. 11, 2023
and reports by:
-- Expert discovery to be completed by: Oct. 26, 2023
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Dec. 11, 2023
Certification to be filed by:
-- The Defendants' Opposition to Motion Jan. 25, 2024
for Class Certification to be
filed by:
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply to be filed by: Feb. 15, 2024
-- Hearing on Motion for Class March 21, 2024
Certification and Status Conference
set for:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
EF Institute provides educational services.[CC]
EL BANDIDO: Acevedo Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR ACEVEDO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EL
BANDIDO RESTAURANT INC. a/k/a EL BANDIDO SPRING VALLEY a/k/a EL
BANDIDO MIDDLETOWN; TONITUAH TELLO; and ANGELICA TELLO, Case No.
7:22-cv-08180-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting conditional class certification, court-authorized
notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), and expedited discovery.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NbVLQQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliseo Cabrera, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: EDCabrera@katzmelinger.com
ENSERVCO CORP: Continues to Defend Safe Class Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enservco Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 15, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Safe class suit in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado.
On May 22, 2022, Ali Safe, acting individually and on behalf of
others, filed a class action complaint in United States District
Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the Company and
certain of its officers violated securities laws in relation to
certain of its SEC Form 10-Q filings in 2021 which required
amendments and restatements to such filings.
On November 28, 2022, the plaintiff amended their complaint
primarily to add Jan Lambert as lead plaintiff and to include Cross
River Partners, L.P. and Cross River Capital Management, LLC as
defendants.
On February 10, 2023, the Company filed a motion in the United
States District Court of Colorado to dismiss the class action
complaint, citing a lack of specific facts and evidence brought by
the plaintiffs in alleging the Company and certain of its officers
committed securities fraud.
As described in the motion requesting dismissal, the Company cites
a lack and failure by the plaintiffs to bring significant and
specific evidence in claiming that the Company and certain of its
officers acted in an intentionally fraudulent or misleading manner,
in connection with the Company restating its Form 10-Q financial
filings for the first, second, and third fiscal quarters of 2021,
due to errors relating to complex and technical tax and accounting
issues, which did not have an impact on revenue, operating
expenses, operating loss, or adjusted EBITDA for the three 2021
quarterly financial restatements.
The Company believes the class action complaint is baseless and
without merit and have engaged counsel to vigorously defend the
Company against such claims.
Enservco Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
provides various services to the domestic onshore oil and natural
gas industry.
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Celano Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fulcrum Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Celano securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On April 28, 2023, a class action complaint, Celano v. Fulcrum
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23cv2360, was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against
the Company and current and former officers (the "Securities
Action"). The Securities Action alleges violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against all defendants and control person
violations of Section 20(a) against the individuals, related to the
Company's February 2023 announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration issued a clinical hold regarding the investigational
new drug application for FTX-6058 for the potential treatment of
sickle cell disease.
The Securities Action alleges that the defendants made misleading
statements and omitted to disclose material information related to
the clinical hold and seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price
between March 3, 2022, and March 8, 2023, as well as attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Company has reviewed the allegations and believes they are
without merit. The Company intends to defend vigorously against
this litigation.
Fulcrum Therapeutics -- https://www.fulcrumtx.com/ -- is a
biotechnology company that focuses on identifying and treating
rare
genetic diseases at their root cause.[BN]
G.I. INDUSTRIES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 3, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE AVALOS, ARMANDO
SOTO, JESUS OROZCO, HECTOR GARCIA, GERARDO ZENDEJAS, JAIME GARCIA,
v. G.I. INDUSTRIES, dba WASTE MANAGEMENT, a corporation, WASTE
MANAGEMENT, INC., a corporation, WM RESOURCES, INC., a corporation,
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-03842-MAA (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Maria A. Audero entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs leave to file a first amended complaint and continuing
precertification scheduling dates:
-- Last day to file an Answer to First June 13, 2023
Amended Complaint:
-- Pre-certification non-expert discovery Dec. 1, 2023
cut-off:
-- Last day to conduct pre-certification Dec. 1, 2023
ADR-private mediation:
-- Deadline to file a motion for class Jan. 3, 2024
Certification:
-- Deadline to file opposition to motion Jan. 24, 2024
for class certification:
-- Deadline to file reply on motion for Feb. 14, 2024
class certification:
-- Hearing on motion for class April 2, 2024
Certification:
-- Post-Certification Further Scheduling April 9,
2024
Conference
GI Industries provides high quality refuse and recycling collection
services to residents and businesses.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45LfkXo at no extra charge.[CC]
GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks July 17 Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EWALT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. GATEHOUSE
MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, Case No.
2:19-cv-04262-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting a 45-day extension of time, until July 17,
2023, to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and
Appointment of Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion on May 11, 2023. GateHouse Ohio's
opposition is therefore currently due on June 1, 2023. No case
management deadline had been set for the Plaintiffs to file the
motion, and the Plaintiffs did not provide GateHouse Ohio any prior
notice that they were intending to file the motion on or around May
11. Good cause exists to grant this requested extension for at
least three reasons.
A copy of the Court's order the Defendant's motion dated May 22,
2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NbVZra
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq.
Lynn Rowe Larsen, Esq.
Daniel H. Bryan, Esq.
James D. Abrams, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 3500
Cleveland, OH 44114-2302
Telephone: (216) 241-2838
Facsimile: (216) 241-3707
E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com
llarsen@taftlaw.com
dbryan@taftlaw.com
jabrams@taftlaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Certification Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RILLA JEFFERSON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order reconsidering its Order Granting
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The opposition that GM filed in response to the Plaintiff Rilla
Jeffersons class certification motion was based on the narrow class
definition that the Plaintiff had sought.
In granting the Plaintiff's motion, the Court's Opinion changed the
class definition from those owners of Tennessee Vehicles who
actually "experienced" the alleged Shift-to-Park defect to all
"Initial purchasers and lessees of new 'class vehicles,' 2017-2108
GMC Acadias, who purchased or leased their vehicles in Tennessee,"
whether or not the alleged defect ever manifested itself in their
vehicle.
The Opinion's new class definition raises fundamental questions of
Article III standing, Rule 23(b)(3) predominance, and damages that
GM did not have the opportunity to raise and the Court has not had
the opportunity to consider—but should, as the new class
definition conflicts with the decisions of various Circuit Courts
of Appeals, as well as United States Supreme Court precedent.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N4fPDc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Amy M. Pepke, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW LLP
6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 500
Memphis, TN 38119
Telephone: (901) 680-7324
E-mail: amy.pepke@butlersnow.com
- and -
William B. Hill, Jr., Esq.
Joseph J. Orzano, Esq.
William F. Benson, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309-3962
Telephone: (404) 885-1500
E-mail: wbhill@seyarth.com
jorzano@seyfarth.com
wbenson@seyfarth.com
GOOGLE LLC: Filing of Class Cert. Bid in Farwell Due Sept. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Farwell v. Google, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01122 (C.D. Ill., Filed April 20, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order on motion for class
certification deadlines and hearings:
-- Deadlines Motions for Class Sept. 21, 2023
Certification due by:
-- The Plaintiff's Expert Sept. 21, 2023
Disclosure due by:
-- The Defendant's Expert Dec. 7, 2023
Disclosure due by:
-- Responses due by: Aug. 25, 2023
-- Replies due by: Feb. 8, 2024
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property Damage.[CC]
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Class Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to Oct. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIE CARDER, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00137-LMM (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting the
Parties' joint motion for amendment of the scheduling order:
-- The fact discovery deadline is extended from May 18, 2023, to
and including October 18, 2023.
-- Specifically, all document production shall conclude by
August
1, 2023, and all other fact discovery, including
depositions,
shall conclude by October 18, 2023.
-- The deadlines for expert disclosures and expert discovery,
summary judgment and class certification motions, and
pre-trial
filings remain as set forth in the Scheduling Order.
Graco Children's manufactures and sells juvenile products for
babies.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qrKLWv at no extra charge.[CC]
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due July 14
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKI O'HAILPIN, NINA
ARIZUMI, ROBERT ESPINOSA, ERWIN YOUNG, PUANANI BADIANG, SABRINA
FRANKS, RONALD LUM, DAN SAIKI, and BRANDEE AUKAI, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAWAIIAN
AIRLINES, INC. and HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-00532-JAO-RT (D. Haw.), the Hon. Judge Rom A. Trader
entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation for extension of
class certification deadlines as follows:
Event Old Deadline New
Deadline
Deadline to complete class June 30, 2023 June 13,
2023
certification-related
discovery
The Plaintiffs' motion due June 30, 2023 July 14,
2023
The Defendants' response due July 31, 2023 Aug. 14,
2023
The Plaintiffs' reply due Aug. 14, 2023 Aug. 28,
2023
Hawaiian Airlines is the operator of commercial flights to and from
the U.S. state of Hawaii.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N3hk68 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Hochberg, Esq.
John C. Sullivan, Esq.
Austin R. Nimocks, Esq.
Walker Moller, Esq.
Laura Carroll, Esq.
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul Alston, Esq.
Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Esq.
John Rhee, Esq.
Christine Belcaid, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-3689
Telephone: (808) 524-1800
Facsimile: (808) 524-4591
E-mail: paul.alston@dentons.com
nickolas.kacprowski@dentons.com
john.rhee@dentons.com
christine.belcaid@dentons.com
HEALTHCARE VENTURES: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 12, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH SHIFLET, v.
HEALTHCARE VENTURES OF OHIO, LLC, et al. Case No. 2:20-cv-3428
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered a scheduling
order as follows:
-- Any motion to amend or join additional Nov. 3, 2023
parties due by:
-- Discovery due by: Nov. 24, 2023
-- Any motion for class certification Jan. 12, 2024
due by:
-- Dispositive motions due by: Jan. 12, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CfVeqT at no extra charge.[CC]
HEWLETT PACKARD: Ross Compliance Hearing Set for Sept. 28
---------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending April 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2023, that the
compliance hearing for the Ross putative class suit is set for
September 28, 2023.
On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging
that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically
lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing
substantially similar work.
The complaint alleges various California state law claims,
including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing
Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a
California-only class of female employees employed in certain
"Covered Positions."
The parties subsequently reached an agreement to resolve this class
action.
The terms of the settlement are reflected in Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification
of Settlement Class, which was filed with the Court on September
26, 2022.
On November 3, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion and
preliminarily approved the terms of the class settlement, which
defines the settlement class as all "[w]omen actively employed in
California by Defendant at any point from November 1, 2015, through
the date of Preliminary Approval" who were employed in a covered
job code.
The settlement class excludes certain individuals, including those
who previously executed an arbitration agreement with HPE or an
agreement that resulted in a release or waiver of claims.
On April 28, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of the Class Action Settlement and Certification of the
Settlement Class.
The Court has scheduled a compliance hearing for September 28,
2023, to assess the distribution of the settlement fund to the
class members.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company provides information technology
solutions. The Company offers enterprise security, analytics and
data management, applications development and testing, data center
care, cloud consulting, and business process services. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise serves customers worldwide. [BN]
HG OHIO: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Miler Due Jan. 12, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANAE MILLER, et al., v.
HG OHIO EMPLOYEE HOLDING CORP., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-3978 (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered a scheduling order
as follows:
-- Any motion to amend or join additional Nov. 3, 2023
parties due by:
-- Discovery due by: Nov. 24, 2023
-- Any motion for class certification Jan. 12, 2024
due by:
-- Dispositive motions due by: Jan. 12, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oTz8au at no extra charge.[CC]
HIRERIGHT LLC: Hoffman Bid to Strike Judgment Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE HOFFMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HIRERIGHT, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02375-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order granting in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike offer of judgment.
The Rule 68 offer will not be stricken but is declared ineffective
for purposes of Rule 68(d). The Court therefore declares
HireRight's offer ineffective. The Court concludes that it has the
authority to do so, see Gilmore, 323 F.R.D. at 435 (discussing
district courts' authority under Rule 23 to declare "pick off"
offers of judgment ineffective), and that such a decision is not
premature.
Although some courts have characterized a decision granting a
motion to strike or declare ineffective a Rule 68 offer as "an
advisory opinion."
The case arises out of allegations that HireRight which is in the
business of providing employment background checks, provided false
information about the Plaintiff Nicole Hoffman regarding unpaid
court costs and fines, when, in fact, Hoffman did not have any
outstanding costs or fines.
Hoffman first filed her complaint on June 3, 2022, and the parties
began conducting discovery. As a result of findings from the
initial discovery process, Hoffman requested leave from this Court
to amend her complaint to add class allegations.
HireRight is a provider of on-demand employment background checks,
drug testing, Form I-9 and employment and education verifications.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NdA4Ql at no extra charge.[CC]
HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES: $650K Settlement in German Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAITH GERMAN, and ASHLYN
HOFFMAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Great Clips-HEI, Case No.
1:19-cv-03540-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer
entered an order granting the joint motion for preliminary approval
of proposed collective and class action settlement.
The Court further ordered that the parties shall contact the
Court's chambers within seven days of the entry of this order to
set a date for the fairness hearing.
On December 13, 2019, the plaintiffs Faith German and Ashlyn
Hoffman filed suit on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated against defendant Holtzman, alleging violations of
Colorado wage laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiffs claim that Holtzman required its employees to
perform off-the-clock work, failed to provide rest breaks, and
improperly deducted meal breaks that employees did not receive from
employees' pay.
On March 22, 2021, the Court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action under the FLSA.
The settlement agreement defines the settlement class as:
"all current and former receptionists, stylists, assistant
managers
and managers who worked for defendant in Colorado between
December
13, 2017 and December 14, 2022."
There are no subclasses. In exchange for the release of all
claims
by class members, Holtzman has agreed to pay an "all-inclusive"
settlement payment of $650,000 for the benefit of the class.
The parties agree that the monetary value of the settlement,
excluding the amount of attorney's fees and costs or service
awards, would provide the proposed class with higher payments than
it would receive as a result of a jury verdict.
The settlement agreement contains no confidentiality provisions.
The agreement states that the total payment of $650,000 shall be
divided as follows:
-- $234,571.17 Gross Class Settlement Amount
-- $100,000 Gross Overtime Collective Settlement Amount
-- $195,000 Attorneys' Fees
-- $79,178.83 the Plaintiffs' Costs
-- $21,250 Administration Costs
-- $20,000 Service Award for the Plaintiffs ($10,000 each)
The amount to be distributed to each class member will be a
pro-rata portion of the "Net Settlement funds" based on the number
of hours each class member worked for Holtzman.
The agreement defines "net settlement funds" as the total payment
minus the amount approved for plaintiffs' counsel's fees,
plaintiffs' costs, administration costs, and the service award for
the class representatives.
On March 22, 2021, the Court conditionally certified the following
FLSA collective:
"all hourly, non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant
in
the State of Colorado any time within three years of the filing
their written consent through final disposition of this case,
who
were eligible for but did not receive overtime compensation on
account of the Defendant’s payment policies and practices."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IXDtAg at no extra charge.[CC]
HOUSTON NORTHWEST: Riley Files Appeal in Texas Appeals Court
------------------------------------------------------------
AISHA RILEY filed an appeal with the Texas Court of Appeals,
Fourteenth Court of Appeals on May 30, 2023. The appellate case is
captioned as Aisha Riley, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated vs. Houston Northwest Operating Company, L.L.C.,
a Texas Limited Liability Company d/b/a "HCA Houston Healthcare
Northwest" and "Houston Northwest Medical Center," Case No.
14-23-00381-CV.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
challenges charges billed for emergency room visits. Riley sued
Houston Northwest Operating Company, L.L.C. and Gulf Coast for
adding an "Evaluation and Management Services Fee" to her hospital
bill, allegedly without informing her beforehand or obtaining her
consent. It is the second time a federal court has encountered
Riley's claims. Riley dismissed her first case after the Court
expressed concern about its subject-matter jurisdiction. Riley
refiled in the 157th District Court of Harris County, Texas.
The case type is stated as miscellaneous/other civil. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant AISHA RILEY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Daniel E. Blumberg, Esq.
Peter Bagley, Esq.
BLUMBERG BAGLEY PLLC
2304 West Interstate 20, Suite 190
Arlington, TX 76017
Telephone: (817) 277-1500
Facsimile: (817) 277-1170
Defendant-Appellee HOUSTON NORTHWEST OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., a
Texas Limited Liability Company d/b/a "HCA Houston Healthcare
Northwest" and "Houston Northwest Medical Center" is represented
by:
James Patrick Bredehoft, Esq.
BRACEWELL LLP
1445 Ross Avenue Suite 3800
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214) 758-1066
E-mail: patrick.bredehoft@bracewell.com
HUMANA INC: Parties File Stipulation on Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENA MOORE, TIMOTHY K.
SWEENEY, RUSSEL A. HOHMAN, SUSAN M. SMITH and VERONICA CARGILL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HUMANA INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HUMANA INC., THE HUMANA
RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
3:21-cv-00232-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Parties submit stipulation
and order regarding class certification and dismissal of the Board
of Directors of Humana Inc:
1. On April 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint
asserting claims under 29 U.S.C. sections 1109(a),
1132(a)(2).
2. On August 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs amended the Complaint and
filed their First Amended Complaint.
3. The Plaintiffs' FAC alleges that the Defendants breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Plan under ERISA and seeks to
hold
the Defendants liable under 29 U.S.C. section 1109(a) to make
good to the Plan any losses resulting from the alleged
breaches
of fiduciary duty.
4. The Defendants deny that they have breached any duty owed to
the
Plan under ERISA and dispute the allegations in the FAC.
5. On May 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
In that motion and the memorandum in support, the Plaintiffs
proposed that the following class be certified under Rule
23(b)(1):
"All persons, except the Defendants and their immediate
family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Humana
Retirement Savings Plan, at any time between April 13, 2015
through the date of judgment.
6. The Plaintiffs also moved to appoint the Named the Plaintiffs
as
class representatives and Capozzi Adler, P.C. as class
counsel
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
7. The Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is due to be filed on May 22, 2023. In advance
of
that deadline, the Parties have met and conferred regarding
streamlining the litigation for purposes of the efficient
management of the litigation.
Humana Inc. is a for-profit American health insurance company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43p6ZHm at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Phillip Blair, Esq.
KIRK LAW FIRM, PLLC
888 US 23 South
Paintsville, KY 41240
Telephone: (606) 297-5888
Facsimile: (606) 297-5870
E-mail: Phillip.blair@kirklawfirm.net
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Catalina Vergara, Esq.
Noah Ickowitz, Esq.
Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
Deanna M. Rice, Esq.
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-6000
Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
E-mail: cvergara@omm.com
nickowitz@omm.com
bboyle@omm.com
derice@omm.com
- and -
Michael P. Abate, Esq.
KAPLAN JOHNSON ABATE & BIRD LLP
710 West Main Street, 4th Floor
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 416-1630
E-mail: mabate@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Bid for Initial OK of Finch Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ianthus Capital Holdings 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 Finch
class suit settlement agreement preliminary approval motion remains
pending in the Southern District of New York.
On April 20, 2020, Donald Finch, a shareholder of the Company,
filed a putative class action lawsuit with the SDNY against the
Company (the "Class Action Lawsuit") and is seeking damages for an
unspecified amount against the Company, its former Chief Executive
Officer, its current Chief Financial Officer and others for alleged
false and misleading statements regarding certain proceeds from the
issuance of long-term debt, that were held in escrow to make
interest payments in the event of default on such long-term debt.
On May 5, 2020, Peter Cedeno, another shareholder of the Company,
filed a putative class action against the same defendants alleging
substantially similar causes of action.
On June 16, 2020, four separate motions for consolidation,
appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel were
filed by Jose Antonio Silva, Robert and Sherri Newblatt, Robert
Dankner, and Melvin Fussell.
On July 9, 2020, the SDNY issued an order consolidating the Class
Action Lawsuit and the Hi-Med Complaint referenced above and
appointed Jose Antonio Silva as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff").
On July 23, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff and defendants filed a
stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to
coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September
4, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class
action lawsuit against the Company (the "Amended Complaint").
On November 20, 2020, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 8,
2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The Company and its Chief Financial Officer’s reply to the
opposition was filed on February 22, 2021. In a memorandum of
opinion dated August 30, 2021, the SDNY granted the Company's and
its Chief Financial Officer's Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint. The SDNY indicated that the Lead Plaintiff may move for
leave to file a proposed second amended complaint by September 30,
2021.
On October 1, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File a second Amended Complaint was included as part of
the Stipulation identified above.
On November 3, 2021, the SDNY so-ordered the Stipulation and the
Lead Plaintiff's second Amended Complaint was deemed filed as of
this date.
On December 20, 2021, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Lead Plaintiff's second Amended
Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff's opposition to the Company's and its
Chief Financial Officer's Motion to Dismiss was filed on February
3, 2022.
The Company's and its Chief Financial Officer's reply to the Lead
Plaintiff's opposition was filed on March 21, 2022.
On September 28, 2022, the SDNY issued an opinion granting in part
and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Lead Plaintiff's
second Amended Complaint.
On October12, 2022, the parties filed the Joint Stipulation and
Proposed Scheduling Order, which the SDNY so ordered on October 19,
2022, ordering that that the Defendants' answers are due on
November 21, 2022; that the parties shall submit a proposed
discovery plan by December 12, 2022; and that discovery in the
Class Action Lawsuit shall be coordinated with discovery in the
Hi-Med action referenced above, to the extent the two actions
involved overlapping issues.
The parties agreed to submit the matter, together with the Hi-Med
action referenced above, to mediation, which took place on January
17, 2023.
On January 31, 2023, the parties advised the SDNY that the
Defendants and Lead Plaintiff reached a settlement in principle and
anticipated filing a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement by March 9, 2023.
Accordingly, the parties requested that the SDNY suspend all
further deadlines and proceedings in the Class Action Lawsuit
pending submission of the motion for preliminary approval.
On March 7, 2023, the parties advised the SDNY that the parties
required a short extension of the motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement and such motion would be filed by March 21, 2023.
On March 21, 2023, the parties executed a settlement agreement and
filed the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with
the SDNY, which remains pending.
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. owns and operates licensed cannabis
cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities throughout the
United States, providing investors diversified exposure to the
U.S.
regulated cannabis industry. The company is based in New York, New
York.
IANTHUS CAPITAL: Blue Sky Suit Parties Engage in Settlement Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ianthus Capital Holdings 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
parties in Blue Sky putative class suit engaged in settlement
discussions on March 3, 2023 to resolve fully the Amended Claim.
On July 23, 2020, Blue Sky Realty Corporation filed a putative
class action against the Company, the Company's former Chief
Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice ("OSCJ") in Toronto, Ontario.
On September 27, 2021, the OSCJ granted leave for the plaintiff to
amend its claim ("Amended Claim"). In the Amended Claim, the
plaintiff seeks to certify the proposed class action on behalf of
two classes. "Class A" consists of all persons, other than any
executive level employee of the Company and their immediate
families ("Excluded Persons"), who acquired the Company's common
shares in the secondary market on or after April 12, 2019, and who
held some or all of those securities until after the close of
trading on April 5, 2020.
"Class B" consists of all persons, other than Excluded Persons, who
acquired the Company's common shares prior to April 12, 2019, and
who held some or all of those securities until after the close of
trading on April 5, 2020. Among other things, the plaintiff alleges
statutory and common law misrepresentation, and seeks an
unspecified amount of damages together with interest and costs.
The plaintiff also alleges common law oppression for releasing
certain statements allegedly containing misrepresentations inducing
Class B members to hold the Company's securities beyond April 5,
2020.
No certification motion has been scheduled.
The Amended Claim also changed the named plaintiff from Blue Sky
Realty Corporation to Timothy Kwong.
The hearing date for the motion for leave to proceed with a
secondary market claim under the Securities Act (Ontario) has been
vacated.
On March 3, 2023, the Company made a settlement offer to the
plaintiff to fully resolve the Amended Claim and the parties are
engaging in settlement discussions.
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. owns and operates licensed cannabis
cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities throughout the
United States, providing investors diversified exposure to the
U.S.
regulated cannabis industry. The company is based in New York, New
York.
INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inotiv 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 Grobler putative securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
On June 23, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Indiana, naming the Company and Robert W. Leasure and Beth A.
Taylor as defendants, captioned Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ind.).
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the Company's
acquisition of Envigo RMS and its regulatory compliance.
On September 12, 2022, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System was appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff.
Thereafter, on November 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint against the same defendants, in addition to John
E. Sagartz and Carmen Wilbourn, that asserted the same claims along
with a claim under Section 14(a) of the Act.
On November 23, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint against the aforementioned defendants asserting the same
claims as the amended complaint and further alleging that false and
misleading statements and material omissions were made concerning
the Company's non-human primate business.
The purported class in the operative complaint includes all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between September 21, 2021 and November 16, 2022, and the complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.
While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the
Company believes the class action to be without merit and plans to
vigorously defend itself.
Inotiv purports to be a contract research organization which
provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development
services and research models and related products and
services.[BN]
INTRUSION INC: Celeste Class Suit Settlement, Allocation Plan OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intrusion 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 Celeste class suit settlement
and allocation plan are approved by the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Texas on March 22, 2023.
On April 16, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division,
captioned Celeste v. Intrusion Inc. et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00307
(E.D. Tex.) against the Company, the Company's now-former chief
financial officer, and now-former chief executive officer alleging,
among other things, that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements or omissions about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The Celeste lawsuit claimed compensatory damages and legal fees.
On May 14, 2021, a related class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Division, captioned Neely v. Intrusion Inc., et al., Case No.
4:12-cv-00374 (E.D. Tex.) against the Company, the Company’s
now-former chief financial officer, and now-former chief executive
officer.
The Neely lawsuit alleged the same violations under the federal
securities laws as those alleged in the Celeste lawsuit. The Neely
lawsuit also sought compensatory damages and legal fees.
On November 23, 2021, the Court consolidated the Celeste and Neely
actions, and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel. The lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint on February
7, 2022. The amended complaint named the following additional
parties as named defendants: Mr. Michael Paxton, a former director
and executive officer; Mr. Gary Davis, a former officer; Mr. Joe
Head, the current chief technology officer, and a former director;
and Mr. James Gero, a current director and chair of the
compensation committee.
The parties to the consolidated action held a mediation on April 5,
2022, at the conclusion of which the parties executed a settlement
term sheet setting forth the material terms associated with the
resolution of the action, subject to the preparation of formal
documents and a plan of distribution approved by the Court.
The settlement agreement was subject to certain terms and
conditions and received final approval by the Court on December 16,
2022.
At that time, a final judgment was entered dismissing the case,
with the Court retaining jurisdiction over the action for purposes
of enforcing the terms of the class settlement agreement. The $3.3
million settlement was paid by the Company's insurance provider
under its insurance policy as the Company's retention had
previously been exhausted.
The lead plaintiff in the class action filed a motion for
distribution of settlement funds on February 21, 2023.
The Court approved the parties’ class action settlement and plan
of allocation on March 22, 2023, and cancelled the previously
rescheduled March 31, 2023, hearing on the motion for distribution,
all remaining matters in the class action then-pending having been
fully and finally adjudicated.
IOWA HEALTH: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Tisdale Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tisdale v. Iowa Health
System, Case No. 1:23-cv-01142-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45QYYMO at no extra charge.[CC]
ISM VUZEM: Hearing on Maslic's Bid for Class Certification Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SASA MASLIC, et al., v.
ISM VUZEM, D.O.O., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02556-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order vacating
hearing on the plaintiff Maslic's motion for class certification.
-- The Court finds that the Plaintiff Maslic's motion for class
certification is suitable for decision without oral argument.
-- The June 1, 2023, hearing on the motion is vacated.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oEPuDW at no extra charge.[CC]
J.M. SMUCKER: Court Narrows Claims in Humphrey Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN HUMPHREY, v. THE
J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting in part and
denying in part motion to dismiss:
-- The motion to dismiss is denied in part and granted in part,
with leave to amend the claims asserted on behalf of the
multi-
state subclass. Any amended complaint is due within 20 days
of
the issuance of this Order.
-- The Case Management Conference is reset for June 13, 2023, at
2:00 p.m.
-- A Joint Case Management Statement is due by June 6, 2023.
Smucker allegedly made the statements at issue on the packaging of
the products it sells to consumers, which it has a pecuniary
interest in selling, and thus would plausibly fall within this
category. I see no reason to dismiss the negligent
misrepresentation claim at this stage.
Humphrey asserts these claims on behalf of a two classes, the first
of which ("the Class") is defined as:
"All persons in the State of California who, within the
applicable
statute of limitations period, up to and including the date of
final judgment in this action, purchased any of the defendant's
products at issue."
The second is a "Consumer Fraud Multi-State Subclass," defined as:
"All Class Members who within the applicable statutes of
limitations period, up to and including the date of final
judgment
in this action, purchased any of the products at issue in
California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, or Washington)."
Smucker moves to dismiss a class action complaint brought by
plaintiff Robin Humphrey, who alleges that Smucker falsely
represented that certain dog and cat food products were healthy for
pets when in fact they contain titanium dioxide (TiO2) and their
packaging contains (or risks containing) per-and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), both of which can cause detrimental health
effects.
Humphrey has alleged an injury to show individual standing in this
false advertising case but does not have standing to assert claims
on behalf of other class members who purchased the products in
other states. The claims asserted on behalf of the multi-state
subclass are dismissed with leave to amend. Otherwise, Humphrey's
claims may proceed. The alleged statements at issue are actionable
at this point, and Smucker's challenge to her negligent
misrepresentation claim is not persuasive.
J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oLF2KE at no extra charge.[CC]
JACOBO FARM: Bid to Decertify Class in Gomez Nixed
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISOL GOMEZ and IGNACIO
OSORIO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. J JACOBO FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-01489-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order:
-- denying the defendants motion to decertify class; and
-- denying the defendants motion in limine to exclude plaintiffs'
expert witness.
The Defendant is arguing that a different conclusion should have
been reached from Woolfson's methodology, this argument is
inapposite because "the test under Daubert is not the correctness
of the expert's conclusions but the soundness of his methodology."
This class action lawsuit involves an employment dispute with J.
Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. The Court certified the
Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant failed to issue proper
itemized wage statements to its employees in violation of
California law.
Jacobo is a farm labor contractor.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qvdtG3 at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: SDCERA Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK HALL, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01833-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J.), the Lead
Plaintiff San Diego County Employees Retirement Association
(SDCERA) asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3);
2. appointing Lead Plaintiff SDCERA as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel.
Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded
in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and
consumer packaged goods.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42AhWVl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
Robert R. Henssler Jr., Esq.
Nathan R. Lindell, Esq.
Laura M. Andracchio, Esq.
Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
Matthew J. Balotta, Esq.
Alexander Mendoza, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
artl@rgrdlaw.com
bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com
nlindell@rgrdlaw.com
landracchio@rgrdlaw.com
hstakem@rgrdlaw.com
mbalotta@rgrdlaw.com
amendoza@rgrdlaw.com
JOSH STEIN: Must Respond to Initial Injunction Bid by June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 (M.D.N.C., Filed April 10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Joe
L. Webster entered an order on motion for extension of time to file
response/reply:
-- The Defendants shall have up to and including June 30, 2023,
to
respond to the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction;
and
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and to answer
or
otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
JOSHUA STEIN: June 30 Extension for Class Cert. Response Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. JOSHUA STEIN, in his official capacity
as Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, SATANA DEBERRY,
in her official capacity as District Attorney of the 16th
Prosecutorial District, AVERY MICHELLE CRUMP, in her official
capacity as District Attorney of the 24th Prosecutorial District
and LORRIN FREEMAN, in her official capacity as District Attorney
of the 10th Prosecutorial District, and as representatives of a
class of all district attorneys in the state of North Carolina,
Case No. 1:23-00302-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order enlarging the time in which to file and
serve their responses to the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and to
answer or file and serve other responsive pleadings to the
Plaintiff's Complaint.
On April 10, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this matter,
naming as defendants North Carolina Attorney General Joshua Stein,
Satana Deberry, District Attorney for the 16th Prosecutorial
District, Avery Michelle Crump, District Attorney for the 24th
Prosecutorial District and Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney for
the 10th Prosecutorial District, all in their official capacities,
and as representatives of a class of all district attorneys in the
state of North Carolina.
On May 3, 2023, the Defendants Deberry, Crump and Freeman executed
waivers of service of summons. On May 8, 2023, the Plaintiff filed
a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
On May 17, 2023, undersigned counsel entered an appearance on
behalf of the Defendant's Deberry, Crump and Freeman. On May 19,
2023, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion to Certify Class.
The Defendants move for an extension of time to file:
a. their response to the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction to June 30, 2023;
b. their response to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification to June 30, 2023; and
c. their answer or other responsive pleading or motion to
the Plaintiff’s Complaint to June 30, 2023.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 23, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cabfyx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth Curran O’Brien, Esq.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
Telephone: (919) 716-6800
Facsimile: (919) 716-6755
E-mail: eobrien@ncdoj.gov
K.B. WALLWORX: Castillo Seeks Conditional Certification of Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alejandro Castillo, et
al., v. K.B. Wallworx, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00798-DWL (D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order approving
their motion for conditional certification and directing the
Defendant to provide the contact information requested.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Order direct that the
approved notice of this lawsuit be sent via email and First-Class
U.S. Mail and include a stamped self-addressed return envelope.
The Plaintiffs request that any order approving collective action
provide for a 90-day opt-in period from the date the Plaintiffs are
provided with contact information as the deadline for filing all
Consent to Join Forms with the Court.
Finally, the Plaintiffs requests that they be allowed to send out
one reminder notice to any collective action group member who has
not returned an executed Consent to Join form to the Plaintiffs'
counsel
after 30 days.
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the Plaintiffs Alejandro Castillo and Gary Humm, move
the Court for an Order granting conditional certification to
provide opt-in notices to current and former workers who performed
duties that are similarly situated with the named Plaintiffs.
In addition, the Plaintiffs further request that the Court issue an
order directing production of the most recent contact information
for this group of similarly situated workers to provide notice of
their opportunity to opt-in to this lawsuit.
Workers that Spencers identify as "Installers" were misclassified
as independent contractors when they are really employees as
defined by the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs, Alejandro Castillo and Gary Humm, formerly worked
for independent contractor K.B. Wallworx, Inc. and Spencer's TV &
Appliance.
Spencer's is in the business of selling, servicing, and delivering
appliances.
KB Wallworx is a DOT registered motor carrier.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WPQz8e at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nathaniel J. Hill, Esq.
JACKSON WHITE
40 North Center Street, Suite 200
Mesa, AZ 85201 Telephone: (480) 464-1111
Facsimile: (480) 464-5692
E-mail: centraldocket@jacksonwhitelaw.com
nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com
KEVIN CARR: Smith Bid for Class Certification Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES ALFRED SMITH, JR.,
JONATHAN WINN, KAMAAL ALLEN, MARTINEZ M. EDWARDS, DEVONTE MITCHELL,
ROMELE WALLACE, and EQUANTEZ SLOAN, v. SECRETARY KEVIN A. CARR,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00261-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James D.
Peterson entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and for class counsel is denied.
-- Smith may not proceed as a plaintiff in this lawsuit unless he
pays the full $402 filing fee by June 13, 2023.
-- The remaining plaintiffs will be dismissed from this lawsuit
unless they either pay the full filing fee or file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis by June 13, 2023.
Judge Peterson says, "I must deny the motion for class
certification because plaintiffs are not represented by a lawyer.
Under Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
class must be provided adequate representation. But courts have
repeatedly declined to allow pro se prisoners to represent a class
in a class action."
None of the plaintiffs have paid the $402 filling fee or filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting financial
information. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner
plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the
statutory filing fee of $350.00 for any civil action.
The pro se plaintiffs contend that their equal protection and due
process rights were violated in extended supervision revocation
proceedings. They move for certification of a class and request the
appointment of class counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OXkOIB at no extra charge.[CC]
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Dismiss Hagins Suit Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Hagins, et al., v.
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Incorporated, Case No. W.
Keith Watkins (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Roslyn O. Silver entered
an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss case.
The Court further ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion to strike is
granted in part and denied in part.
Ultimately, taken together and accepted as true, the Plaintiffs'
allegations regarding recordkeeping fees and expensive share
classes are sufficient to state a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty of prudence. the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count 1 will
be denied.
The Defendant also argues the Plaintiffs did not sufficiently
allege the Defendant failed to review and monitor the performance
of the Committee. The Court disagrees. The Plaintiffs alleged the
Defendant "failed to monitor and evaluate the performance of the
Committee or to have a system in place for doing so, standing idly
by as the Plan suffered significant losses as a result of the
Committee's imprudent actions and omissions," among other things.
The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs
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 the Plaintiffs' complaint.
The Plaintiffs allege as follows, with some facts reserved for
later discussion. The Plaintiffs are participants of the
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. 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 Plaintiffs' first claim alleges the Defendant breached its
fiduciary duty under ERISA by mismanaging the Plan. The Plaintiffs
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 Company.
The Defendant allegedly paid direct and indirect recordkeeping
expenses, both of which the Plaintiffs allege were excessive.
Part
of these expenses were paid through a practice known as "revenue
sharing, "where payments are derived from a percentage of
participants' individual accounts. Thus, the Plaintiffs allege
the
recordkeeping expenses bear no relation to services provided.
Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding
company based in Phoenix, Arizona.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43N8cb7 at no extra charge.[CC]
KOLD TRANS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 26, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENNIE HAMILTON on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated persons, and the general
public, v. KOLD TRANS, LLC; KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona
Knight Transportation Inc.; KNIGHT REFRIGERATED, LLC; and KNIGHT
PORT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame
Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file the proposed Fourth
Amended Complaint, attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit A,
adding:
a) plaintiffs Kristopher Kaczanowski, Leroy Coker, and
Darrell
Brown;
b) all overlapping and new claims alleged in the action
entitled
KACZANOWSKI v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona
Knight
Transportation Inc., et al., United States District Court,
Northern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-0118
("Kaczanowski Action");
2. For purposes of the statute of limitations, the additional
claims asserted by Kristopher Kaczanowski, Leroy Coker, and
Darrell Brown in the Kaczanowski Action shall be deemed to
relate back to the filing of the Kaczanowski Action in the
Northern District of California, but shall not relate back to
the date of filing of the instant Action;
3. The Plaintiffs shall dismiss the Kaczanowski Action upon the
filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint;
4. The Defendants KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC. dba Arizona Knight
Transportation Inc. and KNIGHT PORT SERVICES, LLC shall file
a
responsive pleading to the amended complaint within thirty
(30)
days of the filing;
5. By stipulating to the filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint,
the
Defendants do not concede the sufficiency of any allegations
and
reserve the right to assert any applicable defenses;
6. The Class Certification briefing schedule and hearing date
shall
be modified as follows:
Class Certification Motion Jan. 26, 2024
(filing deadline):
Opposition to Class Certification April 8, 2024
Motion (filing deadline):
Reply to Opposition to Class May 8, 2024
Certification Motion
(filing deadline):
Hearing on the Plaintiffs' June 4, 2024
Class Certification Motion:
Kold Trans is a premier provider of truckload and logistics
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43pPRRB at no extra charge.[CC]
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Isaacs
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon.
Judge Aleta A. Trauger entered an initial case management order as
follows:
The case is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for unpaid overtime.
The Plaintiffs are current and former hourly, non-exempt direct
care employees of the Defendant who worked at numerous Landmark
Recovery facilities—outside the state of Ohio.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant required a daily meal deduction
of 30 minutes of paid time from their recorded work time. This
required deduction was made for a 30-minute meal break that the
Plaintiffs were frequently unable to take at all or that was, at a
minimum, interrupted or otherwise shortened by having to perform
substantive work duties.
The Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in many workweeks,
especially when this unpaid work time is correctly included in
their hours worked. In short, the Defendant’s companywide meal
break deduction policy and/or practice resulted in the Plaintiffs
not being properly paid for all their hours worked, including
overtime hours worked, in violation of the FLSA.
-- The deadline for the parties to complete all written discovery
and depose all fact witnesses is reserved and will be set at a
second case management conference. Discovery is not stayed
during
dispositive or other motions, unless ordered by the Court.
Local
Rule 33.01(b) is expanded to allow 40 interrogatories,
including
subparts. No motions concerning discovery are to be filed
until
after the parties have conferred in good faith and, unable to
resolve their differences, have scheduled and participated in
a
conference telephone call with Judge Trauger.
-- The deadline for parties to file all Motions to Amend is
reserved
and will be set at a second case management conference.
-- The deadline for the Plaintiff to identify and disclose all
expert witnesses and expert reports is reserved and will be
set
at a second case management conference Likewise, the deadline
for
the Defendant to identify and disclose all expert witnesses
and
reports is reserved.
-- The parties shall have until June 12, 2023, to reach an
agreement
on how to conduct electronic discovery. If the Parties do not
file such an agreement by June 12, 2023, the default standard
contained in Administrative Order No. 174-1 shall apply to
this
case.
-- Selection of a target trial date and the parties' estimated
trial
duration is reserved.
The Defendant is the owner, operator, and manager of numerous
addiction treatment centers throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CbcSMe at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan O. Harris, Esq.
Allison Gluvna Folk, Esq.
Ashton P. Hoffman, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
611 Commerce St., Suite 3102
Nashville, TN 37203
E-mail: jonathan.harris@jacksonlewis.com
allison.folk@jacksonlewis.com
ashton.hoffman@jacksonlewis.com
LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend Drug Pricing Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Co. 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 drug pricing-related putative class suit
in the federal district court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its former officers in the federal district
court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the
Company and two of its former officers damaged the purported class
by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.
In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
in February 2018.
In July 2018, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint.
In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third
amended complaint alleging that the Company and two of its former
officers made false and misleading statements regarding the impact
of competition on prices and sales of certain of the Company's
products, regarding the potential effects on the Company of
regulatory investigations and antitrust litigation, and regarding
the defendants' investigation of purported anticompetitive conduct.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
in November 2018.
In May 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.
In July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended
complaint. In October 2020, counsel for the putative class filed a
motion for class certification.
In March 2021, the Company filed a brief in opposition to the
motion to certify the putative class.
In August 2021, the court granted the motion to certify the
proposed class, to appoint class representatives, and to appoint
class counsel.
In August 2021, the Company filed a petition for permission to
appeal the court's class certification order.
In September 2021, counsel for the class filed a response in
opposition to the Company's petition.
In November 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit granted the Company's petition for permission to appeal the
class certification order.
In January 2022, the Third Circuit granted the Company's motion to
stay the case pending a decision on the interlocutory appeal.
The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable
laws and continues to vigorously defend itself from these claims.
The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at
this time.
Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
LAWRENCE O'TOOLE: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA STREET, RONALD
HARRIS, FUDAIL MCCAIN, ASHLEY THEIS, and NICOLE WARRINGTON, on
behalf of Themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, v.
LT. COL. LAWRENCE O'TOOLE, et.al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02590-CDP (E.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- granting final approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement;
-- certifying the Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of
Civil Procedure;
-- affirming its appointment of the Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives,
-- appointing Khazaeli Wyrsch, LLC and Campbell Law, LLC as Class
Counsel; and
-- approving Final Judgment.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P4eG1e at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Javad M. Khazaeli, Esq.
James R. Wyrsch, Esq.
John M. Waldron, Esq.
KHAZAELI WYRSCH LLC
911 Washington Avenue, Suite 211
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 288-0777
Facsimile: (314) 400-7701
E-mail: javad.khazaeli@kwlawstl.com
james.wyrsch@kwlawstl.com
jack.waldron@kwlawstl.com
- and -
Alicia Campbell, Esq.
CAMPBELL LAW LLC
8112 Maryland Ave., Suite 400
St. Louis, MO 63105
E-mail: alicia@campbelllawllc.com
LAWRENCE O'TOOLE: Plaintiffs File Bid for Final OK of Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA STREET, et al., v.
LT. COL. LAWRENCE O'TOOLE, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02590-CDP (E.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to extend the Plaintiffs'
deadline to file motion for final approval of class certification.
1. On February 6, 2023, this Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion
for Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement.
2. That Order set the deadline for the Plaintiffs to final their
Motion for Final Approval of the settlement by May 23, 2023.
3. Since that time, counsel for both parties have worked with
the
Claims Administrator to serve notice on all class members.
4. Class Counsel has nearly completed its preparation of the
Final
Approval filings; however, Class Counsel requires two days to
resolve several minor issues that arose at the last moment
before filing.
5. The Plaintiffs, by consent of the Defendants, request an
extension of two days, to May 25, 2023, by which to file
their
Motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43GrvD1 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Javad M. Khazaeli, Esq.
James R. Wyrsch, Esq.
John M. Waldron, Esq.
KHAZAELI WYRSCH LLC
911 Washington Avenue, Suite 211
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 288-0777
Facsimile: (314) 400-7701
E-mail: javad.khazaeli@kwlawstl.com
james.wyrsch@kwlawstl.com
jack.waldron@kwlawstl.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Scheduling Conference Set for June 21 in Bates
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bates v. Leprino Foods
Company, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00700 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered an order on class
certification, referral to the Magistrate Judge for further
scheduling, and approval of the class notice and distribution
plan.
-- The Court sets a Scheduling Conference for June 21, 2023.
-- The parties shall file a Joint Scheduling Report one week
prior
to the conference.
-- The parties shall appear at the conference remotely with each
party connecting either via Zoom video conference or Zoom
telephone number.
-- The parties will be provided with the Zoom ID and password by
the
Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference.
The suit involves Labor Litigation.
Leprino is a mozzarella cheese maker and producer of whey protein
and dairy ingredients.[CC]
LIFE360 INC: Continues to Defend E.S. Purported Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Life360 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 E.S. purported class suit.
A purported class action (E.S. v. Life360, Inc.) alleging a single
cause of action for unjust enrichment was filed against Life360 on
January 12, 2023, seeking equitable relief purportedly arising out
of Life360's historic data sales.
Given the inherently uncertain nature of litigation, the ultimate
disposition of the case is not presently determinable, but the
Company intends to defend against the claim.
Life360, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in San Francisco, California. Life360
operates a fast-growing social network aimed at keeping its 50-
million users' "families and close friends connected."
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 9
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aley v. Lightfire
Partners, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00330 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 7,
2022), the Hon. Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered a scheduling
order as follows:
-- A further timely status report shall be June 23,
2023
filed by plaintiff by:
-- The Plaintiff's expert disclosure due: Aug. 11,
2023
-- The Defendant's expert disclosure due: Sept. 11,
2023
-- Rebuttal due: Sept. 26,
2023
-- Class Certification Motion to be filed by: Nov. 9, 2023
-- All Discovery due: Nov. 20,
2023
-- Discovery Motions due: Dec. 4, 2023
-- Dispositive Motions to be filed by: Jan. 12,
2024
Lightfire is an advertising agency.[CC]
LOTTERY.COM: Reply Brief on Bid to Junk Preston Suit Due June 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lottery.com Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2023, that the opposition of
plaintiffs to the Preston class suit dismissal motion was due May
18, 2023 and Company's reply brief to the motion is due June 20,
2023.
On August 19, 2022, Preston Million filed the Class Action
Complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") against the Company and
certain former officers and directors of the Company in the United
States District Court for Southern District of New York, styled
Preston Million, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated vs. Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a Trident Acquisitions Corp.,
Anthony DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson and Ryan Dickinson (Case No.
1:22-cv-07111-JLR). The Class Action Complaint alleged violations
by all defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b),
78t(a), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"), U.S.C. § 78u-4 et seq. (collectively "Federal
Securities Laws").
On November 18, 2022, the SNDY ordered the appointment of RTD Bros,
LLC, Todd Benn, Tom Benn and Tomasz Rzedian (collectively "Lottery
Investor Group") as lead plaintiff and Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP
as lead counsel for plaintiffs and for the class in the case.
On December 5, 2022, the Court stipulated a Scheduling Order in the
case.
On January 12, 2023, the Company's legal counsel timely filed its
Notice of Appearance.
On January 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint
adding Kathryn Lever, Marat Rosenberg, Vadim Komissarov, Thomas
Gallagher, Gennadii Butkevych, Ilya Ponomarev as additional
defendants in the case.
The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements in violation of
Section 10(b),14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages, reasonable cost and expenses including
counsel fees and expert fees.
Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Company filed its motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 3, 2023, under the newly
consolidated caption and its proposed order to dismiss the matter.
Plaintiffs are expected to file their opposition to the motion to
dismiss no later than May 18, 2023, which would trigger the
Company's deadline to file its reply brief in support of their
motion to dismiss no later than June 20, 2023.
LOTTERY.COM, INC. F/K/A TRIDENT ACQUISITIONS CORP. operates as a
lottery service company. [BN]
LULIFAMA.COM: Pop Bid to Compel Better Discovery Replies Partly OKd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIN POP, v. LULIFAMA.COM
LLC, MY LULIBABE, LLC, LOURDES HANIMIAN, TAYLOR MACKENZIE GALLO,
ALEXA COLLINS, ALLISON MARTINEZ, CINDY PRADO, GABRIELLE EPSTEIN,
HALEY PALVE, LEIDY AMELIA LABRADOR and PRISCILLA RICART, Case No.
8:22-cv-02698-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed
entered an order granting in part and denying without prejudice in
part the Plaintiff's motion to compel better discovery responses
and for Rule 37 Sanctions.
-- Luli Fama shall provide initial amended discovery responses
based
on these revised definitions on or before June 2, 2023.
-- Luli Fama's amended discovery responses shall be completed on
or
before June 9, 2023.
-- Luli Fama shall amend its initial disclosures to include each
lawyer, association, firm, partnership, corporation, limited
liability company, subsidiary, conglomerate, affiliate,
member,
and other identifiable and related legal entity that has or
might
have an interest in the outcome of this litigation, to include
those entities identified by the Plaintiff in the Motion, on
or
before June 2, 2023.
-- The Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to Federal
Rule of
Civil Procedure 37 is denied.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and a
class of similarly situated individuals against the Defendants Luli
Fama, My Lulibabe LLC, Luli Fama's CEO and founder Lourdes
Hanimian, and several individual social media "influencers"
(Influencer the Defendants) alleging violations of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. section 45(a); Florida’s
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. section
501.201 et seq.; unjust enrichment; and negligent
misrepresentation.
The Plaintiff allegedly purchased Luli Fama swimwear in April 2022
after viewing pictures of the Influencer the Defendants wearing the
swimwear on the social media platform Instagram. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants are illegally and deceptively
advertising Luli Fama products on social media and that such
advertising caused him to purchase inferior products at inflated
prices.
The Plaintiff also asserts class claims on behalf of a proposed
class of individuals that purchased Luli Fama products using their
social media platform or online store from October 6, 2018, to the
date of the Complaint.
LuliFama.com is an online platform that allows users to shop for
swimwear.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NdrGAd at no extra charge.[CC]
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Seeks to Preclude Introduction of Evidence
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS ALLEGRA, YESENIA
ARIZA, MARIANA ELISE EMMERT, STUART ROGOFF, GRACELYNN TENAGLIA, and
MELISSA VERRASTRO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, an Ohio Corporation
d/b/a LensCrafters, Case No. 1:17-cv-05216-PKC-LB (E.D.N.Y.),
LensCrafters asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion
in limine to preclude the introduction of evidence and argument
that is inconsistent with the court's class certification order.
Luxottica submits the motion in limine to preclude the Plaintiffs
from introducing evidence or argument inconsistent with the Court's
order dated December 13, 2021, granting in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs contend that multiple state law claims under
California, Florida and New York law can be tried in a single jury
trial on a classwide basis.
Luxottica offers prescription glasses and sunglasses.
A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated May 22, 2023, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43E75Lv at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq.
Brian E. Johnson, Esq.
Eric A. Kafka, Esq.
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW
East Tower, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
bejohnson@cohenmilstein.com
ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Frank A. Dante, Esq.
Michael A. Iannucci, Esq.
Melissa F. Murphy, Esq.
Michael A. Stoolman, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-569-5645
E-mail: frank.dante@blankrome.com
michael.iannucci@blankrome.com
melissa.murphy@blankrome.com
michael.stoolman@blankrome.com
MAKITA USA: Court Narrows Claims in May First Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned THOMAS MAY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MAKITA U.S.A., INC.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00079-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen N.
Limbaugh, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint.
The Court further ordered that the Plaintiff's Count II and III are
dismissed without prejudice.
Even if the Plaintiff's math is debatable, he pleads sufficient
facts to show that an expiring wheel without a clearly printed
expiration date is objectively worth less than an expiring wheel
with a clearly-printed expiration date. The Defendant's citation to
Briehl v. Gen. Motors Corp. is inapposite because that case dealt
with application of the Eighth Circuit's manifest defect rule to a
defective products case, which, as discussed supra, this case is
not.
The Plaintiffs pled no basis for damages when they did not plead
the purchased product exhibited the complained-of defect).
Accordingly, the Court will deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Count I of the Plaintiff's FAC.
The Plaintiff fails to plead any facts showing that he complied
with the notice requirements of Sec. 400.2-607(3), and the Court
will grant the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Count II.
The Defendant makes and sells organic bonded abrasive wheels used
to cut metal and concrete.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qCpIR1 at no extra charge.[CC]
MAURA HEALEY: Seeks to Strike Class Cert Attachments in Simmons
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SIMMONS, et al., v.
MAURA HEALEY, in her official capacity as Governor of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-11715-PBS
(D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order striking
Attachments "A" and "B" to the Plaintiffs' amended memorandum of
law in support of their motion for class certification.
-- "Attachment A" is a table providing a "List of Selected ADA
Class Action Cases," spanning thirty-six pages and purporting
to
accurately describe the "Class Certified, " "the Defendants,"
"Injunctive/Declaratory Relief Sought, " and "Category, " in
each of dozens of cases.
-- "Attachment B" is a table providing a list of "Institutional
Placement Class Actions" spanning another twelve pages, and
including the Plaintiffs' paraphrasing as to the nature of
the
classes certified in each case and the "relief sought. "
The Plaintiffs include DAVID MARSTERS, by his next friend, Nancy
Pomerleau; LORRAINE SIMPSON, by her guardian, Sarah Spooner; SHERRI
CURRIN, by her guardian, Sara Spooner; CAROLE CHOJNACKI, by her
guardian, Sara Spooner; RICHARD CAOUETTE, by his guardian, Sara
Spooner; DONALD GRANT, by his guardian, Sara Spooner, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated persons; and MASSACHUSETTS
SENIOR ACTION COUNCIL.
The Defendants include KATE WALSH, in her official capacity as
Acting Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health
and Human Services; MATTHEW GORZKOWICZ, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration
and Finance; ELIZABETH CHEN, in her official capacity as Secretary
of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs; and MICHAEL
LEVINE, in his official capacity as Assistant Secretary for
MassHealth in the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and
Human Services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42tU1ql at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrea Joy Campbell, Esq.
Jennifer E. Greaney, Esq.
Christine Fimognari, Esq.
Grace Gohlke, Esq.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108-1698
Telephone: (617) 963-2981
E-mail: jennifer.greaney@mass.gov
christine.fimognari@mass.gov
grace.gohlke@mass.gov
MDL 2573: Court Dismisses London Silver Fixing Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as London Silver Fixing
Plaintiffs v. London Silver Fixing Defendants, Case No.
1:14-mc-02573 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 15, 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 London 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/3oM7a0p at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2573: Court Dismisses MSL Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Modern Settings LLC, et
al., v. The London Silver Market Fixing Ltd. et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-08311 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 16, 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 Modern 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/3qzRRsb at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2573: Court Dismisses Nalven Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nalven v. The London
Silver Market Fixing, Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-08189
(S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 14, 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 Nalven 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/3Cmb56Y at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 3073: Eleven Data Breach Suits Consolidated in W.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation action captioned "In re: T-Mobile
2022 Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, transfers three cases from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, two from the Central District
of California and one case each from the Northern District of
California, Northern District of Florida, District of Kansas,
Western District of Missouri, District of New Jersey and the
District of South Carolina, all to the Western District of Missouri
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Brian C.
Wimes for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
These putative class actions share complex factual questions
arising from T-Mobile's announcement on January 19, 2023, that a
data security breach of its network occurred in late 2022 in which
an unauthorized actor accessed and acquired files on its network,
including personally identifiable information of 37 million current
and former customers. Common factual questions will include:
T-Mobile's data security practices and whether those practices met
industry standards, how the unauthorized actor obtained access to
T-Mobile's system, the extent of the personal information affected
by the breach, and when T-Mobile knew or should have known of the
breach.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class
certification and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary, says the panel. T-Mobile principally
objected to centralization on grounds that anticipated motions to
compel arbitration in each action may make centralization
unnecessary. But the outcome of these anticipated motions in eleven
different courts is not certain, and indeed, an assessment of the
litigation's merits is beyond the panel's authority.
T-Mobile argued that these motions are not complex, rulings on the
motions will rest on unique plaintiff specific considerations and
are therefore not appropriate for centralized treatment and the
panel can reconsider centralization should the motions be denied.
T-Mobile suggested that, should the motions be denied, the
surviving litigation will be factually and legally complex and does
not deny that centralization at that time would be warranted.
According to the panel, though the motions to compel arbitration
may differ as to the way each customer agreed to arbitrate claims
and whether they opted out, these inquiries and the accompanying
discovery appear to involve some overlapping issues. Having a
single judge oversee discovery regarding arbitration and decide the
motions in a coordinated fashion, therefore, can provide
efficiencies and allow any remaining actions to move forward
together.
A full-text copy of the court's June 2, 2023 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3073-Transfer_Order-5-23.pdf
MDL 3074: Six Suits Consolidated in Wiretapping Litigation Row
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: BPS Direct, LLC and
Cabela's, LLC, Wiretapping Litigation," MDL No. 3074, Judge Karen
K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one case each from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, District of
Massachusetts, Western District of Missouri and the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and two from the Western District of
Pennsylvania, all to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Mark A. Kearney for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
BPS Direct and Cabela's, which are co-owned by Bass Pro, LLC, are
retailers that sell hunting, fishing, camping, and other outdoor
recreation merchandise, both in brick-and-mortar stores and online.
Plaintiffs in these putative class actions allege that defendants'
websites are embedded with session replay code that tracks and
records the activities and data of all visitors to their websites.
Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state wiretap statutes,
the Federal Wiretap Act, or both, as well as various claims under
state consumer protection or data privacy statutes and common-law
claims for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, or unjust
enrichment.
The actions will share questions of fact as to whether and how
defendants record the activities and data of website users, whether
that information is shared with the vendors that supplied the code,
the purposes for which the information is used and by whom, how
defendants' privacy policies are displayed, and where the alleged
recording or interception occurs. The cases are likely to involve
duplicative discovery and overlapping pretrial motions regarding
standing, class certification and the interpretation of the wiretap
statutes.
Defendants oppose centralization, arguing that the actions will
involve individualized factual inquiries regarding how each
plaintiff interacted with defendants' websites. Although there
doubtless will be some factual variations with respect to whether
plaintiffs purchased products on the websites and the extent to
which they were aware of defendants' privacy policies, transfer
does not require a complete identity or even majority of common
factual issues as a prerequisite to transfer.
Defendants similarly contend that centralization is not warranted
because the actions involve legal claims under multiple different
state wiretap statutes. They maintain that even seemingly similar
wiretap statutes have been interpreted differently by courts in
different states and that the question whether the use of session
replay code violates each statute presents a state specific issue
that should be left to local courts. For much the same reason, they
argue that centralization should be deferred until after
defendants' pending motions to dismiss have been ruled on and the
viability of plaintiffs' claims has been determined.
However, the panel said that they routinely have centralized
actions asserting similar claims under different state statutes
where they involve common questions of fact. Moreover, several of
the actions involve claims under the same statutes and, as the
motions to dismiss filed in several of these cases demonstrate,
even motions under different states' statutes will present similar
issues, as most wiretap statutes employ largely the same
terminology.
Finally, defendants claim that there are too few actions to warrant
centralization and that informal coordination is feasible and with
limited overlap among the involved plaintiffs' counsel,
centralization appears to be the most efficient option. The panel
concludes that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is an
appropriate transferee district since the district is requested by
movant and all responding plaintiffs, and three of the involved
actions are pending in Pennsylvania.
A full-text copy of the court's June 2, 2023 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3074-Tranfer_Order-5-23.pdf
MDL 3076: Eight Suits Consolidated in FTX Cryptocurrency Row
------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: FTX
Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation," MDL No. 3076, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers five cases from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and three
cases from the Southern District of Florida, all to the Southern
District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to Judge K. Michael Moore for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
This litigation arises out of the collapse of the FTX
cryptocurrency exchange in November 2022 and the subsequent
bankruptcy of FTX Trading Ltd. and its U.S. affiliate FTX US.
Plaintiffs are FTX customers and investors seeking to recover their
losses. Defendants are individuals and entities that allegedly
facilitated FTX's transactions. The actions undoubtedly involve
several non-overlapping defendants and raise defendant-specific
issues. But they all rest on the same core set of facts concerning
the alleged fraud that led to FTX's collapse and, in particular,
revolve around the conduct of FTX's CEO Samuel Bankman-Fried, the
relationship with another Bankman-Fried company known as Alameda
Research, and Alameda's Caroline Ellison.
All actions on the motion allege that there was a conspiracy
between Bankman-Fried and other alleged FTX insiders to make
misrepresentations to consumers and investors to induce them to
invest in FTX products and use the FTX exchange. This common
factual core warrants centralization despite the involvement of a
number of different defendants. The panel says that transfer does
not require a complete identity of common factual issues or parties
as a prerequisite to transfer, and the presence of additional facts
or differing legal theories is not significant where, as here, the
actions still arise from a common factual core. It further finds
that informal coordination is not an adequate alternative to
centralization.
Since dozens of defendants are involved, with little overlap in
their counsel, the large number of plaintiffs' and defense counsel
will pose serious obstacles to informal coordination.
Inefficiencies also will arise from having to coordinate these
unusually complex actions involving novel cryptocurrency issues
with the related criminal cases. Moreover, informal coordination
does not address the possibility of inconsistent rulings and class
certification issues.
The panel concludes that centralization will serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation since these present common questions of
fact concerning the collapse of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange
which allegedly was caused by the conduct of FTX former principals
Sam Bankman-Fried, Zixiao Wang, and Nishad Singh, and financial
improprieties with Alameda Research. All actions allege that FTX
executives fraudulently withheld or misrepresented information with
respect to customer assets on the FTX platform and that the
professional services firms and celebrity promoters who worked with
FTX were complicit in or otherwise bear responsibility for the
alleged fraud - for example, by concealing FTX's financial problems
or promoting FTX products with knowledge or willful blindness of
the alleged fraud.
The common factual questions include whether FTX executives and
their representatives misled customers about FTX's practices for
safeguarding customer funds, whether FTX executives and their
representatives misrepresented the financial condition of the FTX
entities, whether FTX and Alameda executives embezzled customer
assets, the existence and scope of a conspiracy and the nature of
FTX products, such as Yield-Bearing Accounts and FTT tokens.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel and the judiciary. The Southern District of
Florida is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation
since a significant part of FTX's conduct allegedly emanated from
this district, where it had its U.S. headquarters before filing for
bankruptcy. This district also provides an easily accessible
location for this nationwide litigation.
A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2023 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3076-Transfer_Order-5-23.pdf
MDL 3077: Panel Denies Transfer of 9 Suits
------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation captioned "In re: Varsity
Spirit Athlete Abuse Litigation," MDL NO. 3077, Chairperson Karen
K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
denied the transfer of nine cases -- four cases from the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina and one case each
from the Central District of California, the Northern District of
Georgia, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Northern
District of Ohio and the Western District of Tennessee -- to
centralize litigation.
Plaintiffs in all actions are current or former minor all-star
cheer athletes who allege they were subjected to abuse and
inappropriate conduct while competing in various gyms affiliated
with the varsity defendants. They allege in all actions that the
common defendants acted in concert to represent varsity-affiliated
gyms and coaches as safe while perpetuating a culture of athlete
abuse and frustrating efforts to report abuse. All actions bring
claims for violation of the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual
Abuse Act 18, civil conspiracy in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and similar common law
claims. While these actions share common factual questions
regarding the purported scheme and the common defendants' roles in
it, opposing defendants argue that they will be overwhelmed by
unique factual issues concerning the various individual gym and
coach defendants named in each action and the particulars of the
abuse alleged by each plaintiff. While the eight common defendants
are named in all actions, there are approximately 30 individual
coaches, gyms, and choreographers named as defendants in these
actions.
The panel finds that discovery regarding each individual
defendant's conduct and their relationship to and interactions with
the common defendants will not overlap. Therefore, any efficiencies
to be gained by centralization may be diminished by unique factual
issues. Also weighing heavily against centralization are that
plaintiffs in all actions share counsel, there are a limited number
of involved actions and districts and the parties have been
successfully informally coordinating the actions. There are just
ten actions pending in seven districts, four of which are
proceeding before a single judge in the District of South Carolina.
The parties and the involved courts already have demonstrated they
are willing to informally coordinate, as they implemented a
staggered briefing schedule across the actions for motions to
dismiss, several of which are fully briefed and pending. It appears
at this time, therefore, that informal coordination of these
actions is feasible, and that centralization is unnecessary, rules
the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2023 Order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3077-Order_Denying_Transfer-5-23.pdf
MIDDLESEX WATER: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 23, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTA LONSK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MIDDLESEX WATER COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-19808-EP-ESK
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an order extending
class certification schedule:
1. The request for an extension of deadlines relating to class
certification is granted.
2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the
Plaintiff's class certification expert reports, if any, due
on
January 23, 2024.
3. The Defendants shall depose the Plaintiff’s class
certification
expert(s) and the Defendants shall serve their opposition to
class certification and class certification expert reports,
if
any, by April 23, 2024.
4. The Plaintiff shall depose the Defendants’ class
certification
expert(s) and the Plaintiff shall serve her Reply in support
of
class certification and class certification rebuttal expert
reports, if any, by July 9, 2024.
5. Fact Discovery (other than as to merits experts) deadline:
Upon
the Court's ruling on class certification, the parties will
request a scheduling conference to address merits expert
reports
and depositions, any other remaining discovery, and
dispositive
motions.
6. All other case management deadlines remain unchanged.
Middlesex Water engages in collecting, treating and distributing
water.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42nWfrl at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
John Albanese, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: apark@bm.net
scarson@bm.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Donald J. Camerson, II, Esq.
James W. Crowder, IV, Esq.
BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C.
325 Columbia Turnpike
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 514-1200
- and -
Andrew J. Calica, Esq.
Jordan D. Sagalowsky, Esq.
Joshua D. Yount, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2500
- and -
Vincent P. Pozzuto, Esq.
COZEN O’CONNOR
3 WTC 175 Greenwich Street, 55th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 908-1284
E-mail: vpozzuto@cozen.com
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Schaub Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mullen Automotive 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's Schaub
securities class suit dismissal motion has been taken under
submission by the United States District Court Central District of
California.
On May 5, 2022, Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder, filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
Central District of California against the Company, as well as its
Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive
Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer (the "Schaub Lawsuit").
This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf
of a putative class of the Company's shareholders, claiming false
or misleading statements regarding the Company's business
partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
The Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of
shareholders, and seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of
reasonable fees and expenses.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 22, 2022.
On April 13, 2023, the court took the April 14, 2023 hearing off
calendar after determining that oral argument was not necessary.
The Company's motion to dismiss has been taken under submission.
The Company does not have an estimate of possible loss as of March
31, 2023.
Mullen Automotive Inc. is an automotive industry company,
headquartered in Brea, California. [BN]
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN SWEENEY et al., v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01569-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Defendants file motion for
leave to file under seal unredacted versions of certain exhibits
attached to the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class
certification.
On May 18, 2023, the Court ordered the Defendants to file its
motion in support of the Plaintiffs' motion to file under seal
within 10 days. With the instant motion, the Defendants now seek
leave to allow the Plaintiffs to file unredacted versions of
certain exhibits attached to the Plaintiffs' Reply under seal.
Specifically, the Reply references Exhibit 5–7 attached to the
Declaration of Eleanor Frisch. Each of the exhibits referenced
above contain very minimal redactions only as necessary to protect
the Defendants' sensitive trade secret information.
The Defendants seek to redact from the Frisch Exhibits 5–7 only a
handful of lines containing highly sensitive and proprietary
information regarding Nationwide Life's crediting rates and the
terms and performance of certain other investment options offered
under the Nationwide Savings plan not at issue in this litigation.
Accordingly, the very vast majority of the contents of Frisch
Exhibits 5–7 have been filed publicly, and so the request to file
under seal is quite limited in scope and is narrowly tailored.
Nationwide Mutual operates as an insurance and financial services
provider.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NbTbtY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael H. Carpenter, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Lipps, Esq.
CARPENTER LIPPS LLP
280 North High Street, Suite 1300
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 365-4100
Facsimile: (614) 365-9145
E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com
lipps@carpenterlipps.com
- and -
Dustin M. Koenig, Esq.
Jordan M. Baumann, Esq.
Alexandra L. Schill, Esq.
Evan Miller, Esq.
David T. Raimer, Esq.
JONES DAY
325 John H. McConnell Boulevard, Suite 600
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 469-3939
E-mail: dkoenig@jonesday.com
jbaumann@jonesday.com
aschill@jonesday.com
emiller@jonesday.com
dtraimer@jonesday.com
NEW YORK, NY: Case Management Plan Entered in UPOA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED PROBATION OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf of its members, JEAN BROWN,
TANGA JOHNSON, TARA SMITH, EMMA STOVALL, and CATHY WASHINGTON, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:21-cv-00218-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Ronnie Abrams entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
1. All parties do not consent to conducting all further
proceedings
before a magistrate judge, including motions and trial. 28
U.S.C. section 636(c).
2. The parties have not engaged in settlement discussions.
3. This case is to be tried to a jury.
4. Amended pleadings may not be filed and additional parties may
not be joined except with leave of the Court. Any motion to
amend or to join additional parties shall be filed no later
than June 21, 2023.
5. Initial disclosures, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than
June
5, 2023.
6. All non-expert fact discovery for the class certification
phase
of litigation shall be completed no later than October 31,
2023.
7. The parties are to conduct discovery in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the
Southern District of New York.
8. Initial requests for production of documents to be served no
later than July 20, 2023.
9. Initial interrogatories to be served no later than July 20,
2023.
10. Document production to be completed no later than September
21,
2023.
11. Depositions to be completed no later than October 31, 2023.
12. All expert discovery necessary for class certification shall
be
completed no later than January 12, 2024.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qy8kNh at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: O'Leary Reply to Class Cert Bid Due June 30
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as O'Leary v. New York City
Department of Education, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01911 (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge William F. Kuntz, II entered an order granting
motion for extension of time to file response/reply.
-- The Defendants' Response to the June 15, 2023
Plaintiff's Letter Motion for
Class Certification is due by:
-- The Plaintiff's Reply thereto is June 30, 2023
due by:
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment
Discrimination.[CC]
NOAH'S NEW: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 21, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANETE JONES,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NOAH’S NEW YORK BAGELS COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:23-cv-00596-SVK (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Susan Van Kuelen entered an order regarding proposed
schedule re: mediation discovery and class certification briefing
schedule:
-- Mediation Discovery Time and Aug. 31, 2023
Payroll Data:
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Class June 21, 2024
Certification:
-- Defendant's Opposition: July 19, 2024
-- Plaintiff's Reply: Aug. 2, 2024
-- Class Certification Discovery Deadline: Aug. 2, 2024
-- Hearing: Aug. 20, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qrR7VX at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Enzo Nabiev, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Donald P. Sullivan, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS PC
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI POE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE NORTHWESTERN
MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02065-SPG-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff move the Court for an order:
a) certifying the putative class in this litigation;
b) appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; and
c) appointing David S. Klevatt of Klevatt & Associates,
Christopher
R. Pitoun of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Joseph M.
Vanek of Sperling & Slater LLC as lead class counsel.
The proposed class contains putative class members all with
virtually identical claims, including the Plaintiff, who is both
typical and an adequate representative of their interests.
Northwestern Mutual is a provider of life insurance and investment
products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J3QNTM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
Abigail D. Pershing, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
abigailp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
David S. Klevatt, Esq.
KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601-1604
Telephone: (312) 782-9090
E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 224-1500
E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Seeks to File Documents Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI POE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE NORTHWESTERN
MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02065-SPG-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting
her to file under seal portions of certain documents and references
therefrom designated as "Confidential" by the Defendant:
-- the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representative and Class
Counsel.
-- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of
Class
Representative and Class Counsel.
-- Declaration of Christopher R. Pitoun in Support of the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of
Class
Representative and Class Counsel.
-- Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 16 to the Declaration. The February
4,
2022, Protective Order requires that any information
designated
as confidential qualify for protection under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(c).
Northwestern Mutual is a provider of life insurance and investment
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42qvUJb at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
Abigail D. Pershing, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
abigaild@hbsslaw.com
- and -
David S. Klevatt, Esq.
KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601-1604
Telephone: (312) 782-9090
E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 224-1500
E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Renewed Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nova Lifestyle 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 renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the Barney class suit settlement is
pending before the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.
On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was
filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and
current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang
and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, claiming the Company violated
federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
(the "Barney Action").
Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently appointed as lead
plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, filed an Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of entities acquiring Nova's
stock from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018. They claim
that during this period the Company: (1) overstated its purported
strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead
designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in its planned $460
million senior care center in China; and (2) inflated sales in 2016
and 2017 by recognizing significant sales to two allegedly
non-existent customers. Plaintiffs claim that the falsity of these
representations was exposed in a blog posted on the Seeking Alpha
website in which it was claimed that an investigation failed to
confirm the existence of several entities identified as significant
customers.
On March 8, 2022, the parties to the Barney Action filed a
Stipulation of Settlement with the Court. Under the terms of the
Settlement, and without admitting to any wrongdoing, fault, or
liability, the Company agreed to a payment of $750,000 to
completely resolve the Barney Action. The $750,000 would be funded
by the remainder of any retention under applicable directors and
officer liability insurance with the remainder paid by the
directors and officer liability insurer. The settlement provided
for the class members’ complete release of all claims against the
Company and the named defendants with respect to any of the matters
alleged in the litigation. The Settlement was subject to various
conditions, including preliminary approval by the Court, notice to
all class members, an opt-out period, and a final hearing and
approval by the Court.
By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 29, 2022, the Court
denied the Barney plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Certify a
Settlement Class and to Approve the Settlement. The Court held that
plaintiffs had not met their burden of establishing the
prerequisites to class certification of adequacy of class counsel,
numerosity, and the superiority of class certification in fairly
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
The Court similarly concluded that plaintiffs had failed to make a
threshold showing that the settlement was fair and adequate.
Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs' proposed plan for providing
notice of the settlement to putative class members, finding that it
was inadequate under the circumstances.
On March 31, 2023, the Barney plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Renewed
Stipulation of Settlement ("Renewed Settlement"), and accompanying
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which sought to address the
Court’s concerns in the August 29, 2022, ruling.
The Revised Settlement contains the same essential terms as the
Settlement and is subject to the same conditions, including
preliminary approval by the Court, notice to all class members, an
opt-out period, and a final hearing and approval by the Court.
The Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement is pending before the Court.
Nova designs, manufactures and sells modern home furniture for
middle class and urban consumers in diverse markets worldwide.
NOVARTIS INC: Settlement in Exforge Antitrust Suit for Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novartis Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F/A Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 31, 2023, that the settlement in the
Exforge antitrust class suit is subject to court approval.
Since 2018, Novartis Group companies as well as other
pharmaceutical companies have been sued by various direct and
indirect purchasers of Exforge in multiple US individual and
putative class action complaints.
They claim that Novartis made a reverse payment in the form of an
agreement not to launch an authorized generic, alleging violations
of federal antitrust law and state antitrust, consumer protection
and common laws, and seeking damages as well as injunctive relief.
The cases have been consolidated in the S.D.N.Y. In 2022, Novartis
agreed to a settlement in principle to pay USD 245 million to
resolve these cases.
These settlements are subject to mutually agreeable terms,
finalization of documentation and, in some cases, court approval.
Novartis Inc. is into pharmaceutical preparations based in Basel,
Switzerland.
NUTANIX INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending April 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 2, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the purported federal securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On April 14, 2023, a purported federal securities class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, two of its
current officers, and a former officer.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.
This action is brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired our securities between September 21, 2021 and
March 6, 2023, inclusive.
The case is in its very early stages, and the Company is not able
to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to these
complaints.
Nutanix Inc. provides a cloud platform, the Nutanix Cloud Platform,
based in California.
NUTANIX INC: Final Settlement Hearing in Norton Suit Set for Oct. 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending April 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 2, 2023, that the final settlement hearing for
the Norton class suit is scheduled for October 4, 2023.
On May 28, 2021, one of the movants for lead plaintiff, John P.
Norton on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002,
filed a separate class action complaint (the "Options Class Action
Complaint") in the Northern District of California on behalf of a
class of persons or entities who transacted in publicly traded call
options and/or put options on Nutanix stock during the period from
November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, containing allegations
substantively the same as those alleged in the Amended Complaint
(the "Options Class Action") and naming the same defendants.
On September 8, 2021, the court appointed the John P. Norton on
behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002 as the lead
plaintiff in the Options Class Action.
On April 26, 2022, the parties met for mediation, which did not
result in a settlement.
On September 1, 2022, California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust
filed a third amended complaint (which amends the Amended
Complaint, the "Third Amended Complaint") and John P. Norton on
behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002 filed an
amended complaint (which amends the Options Class Action Complaint,
the "First Amended Complaint").
On November 14, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint and the First Amended Complaint.
On February 9, 2023, the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to a
mediator's recommendation to settle these actions for a total of
$71.0 million, which is accrued as of April 30, 2023 and included
within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our
condensed consolidated balance sheet.
On May 19, 2023, the court granted its preliminary approval of the
settlement and the notice to class members, and a final settlement
hearing is scheduled for October 4, 2023.
The case is in its very early stages, and the Company is not able
to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to these
complaints.
Nutanix Inc. provides a cloud platform, the Nutanix Cloud Platform,
based in California.
PAUL MOSS: Bid to Dismiss Pavelka Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKSON PAVELKA AND KAYLEE
PAVELKA, v. PAUL MOSS INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC dba EPIQ INSURANCE
AGENCY, Case No. 1:22-cv-02226-DCN (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Donald C. Nugent entered an order denying the Defendant's motion
for determination that the Plaintiffs are not proper Parties and to
dismiss the complaint.
The Court finds that bifurcation of discovery to first address the
individual liability claims, and then to entertain possible summary
judgment motion practice on the Plaintiffs' individual claims,
prior to class action discovery, is appropriate under Fed. R. Crv.
P. 42(b).
The Court also finds that the parties should be given an
opportunity to complete discovery on the Plaintiffs' individual
liability claims prior to any summary judgment motion practice that
may be initiated on those individual claims at a later date.
On December 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this action against the
Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
alleging two claims of violation of the TCPA. The first claim
alleges that the Defendant Paul Moss Insurance made calls to the
Plaintiffs using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS")
without the Plaintiffs' consent.
The second claim alleges that the Defendant made calls to the
Plaintiffs using a prerecorded voice without the Plaintiffs'
consent. The Plaintiffs' Complaint also seeks to raise these claims
as a class action "individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated" on behalf of two putative nationwide classes.
Paul Moss specializes in Auto, Commercial, Farm, Financial, Home,
Powersports insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MSZBNj at no extra charge.[CC]
PHARMACARE US: Corbett Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT and ROB
DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
the below classes for the following claims asserted in the First
Amended Class Action Complaint.
The Plaintiffs move for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3) of the following two nationwide classes, one for
purchasers of the Defendant's NDI Claim Products and one for
purchasers of the Defendant's Disease Claim Products for violations
of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq., and for
breach of express and implied warranties:
-- National NDI Claim Class:
"All persons in the United States who, within four years of
the
filing of this Complaint, purchased the Sambucol Black
Elderberry
Original Syrup, Sambucol Black Elderberry Advanced Immune
Syrup,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Sugar Free Syrup, Sambucol Black
Elderberry Syrup for Kids, Sambucol Black Elderberry Gummies,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Gummies for Kids, Sambucol Black
Elderberry Advanced Immune Capsules, Sambucol Black Elderberry
Effervescent Tablets, Sambucol Black Elderberry Chewable
Tablets,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Pastilles (Throat Lozenges),
Sambucol
Black Elderberry Daily Immune Drink Powder, and Sambucol Black
Elderberry Infant Drops for personal or household use and not
for
resale.
-- National Misrepresentation Claim Class:
"All persons in the United States who, within four years of
the
filing of this Complaint, purchased the Sambucol Black
Elderberry
Original Syrup (only 4 oz and 7.8 oz sizes), Sambucol Black
Elderberry Sugar Free, Sambucol Black Elderberry Syrup for
Kids,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Effervescent Tablets, Sambucol Black
Elderberry Chewable Tablets, Sambucol Black Elderberry
Pastilles,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Daily Immune Drink Powder, and
Sambucol
Black Elderberry Advanced Immune Syrup for personal or
household
use and not for resale."
The Plaintiffs also seek class certification of the following
damages subclasses for residents of California and Missouri, under
each state's respective consumer protection statutes:
-- California Sub-Classes:
-- California NDI Claim Class:
"All persons who, within four years of the filing of this
Complaint, purchased the Defendant's Sambucol Black Elderberry
Original Syrup, Sambucol Black Elderberry Advanced Immune
Syrup,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Sugar Free Syrup, Sambucol Black
Elderberry Syrup for Kids, Sambucol Black Elderberry Gummies,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Gummies for Kids, Sambucol Black
Elderberry Advanced Immune Capsules, Sambucol Black Elderberry
Effervescent Tablets, Sambucol Black Elderberry Chewable
Tablets,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Pastilles (Throat Lozenges),
Sambucol
Black Elderberry Daily Immune Drink Powder, and Sambucol Black
Elderberry Infant Drops for personal or household use and not
for
resale in California."
-- California Misrepresentation Claim Class:
"All persons who, within four years of the filing of this
Complaint, purchased the Defendant's Sambucol Black Elderberry
Original Syrup (only 4 oz and 7.8 oz sizes), Sambucol Black
Elderberry Sugar Free, Sambucol Black Elderberry Syrup for
Kids,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Effervescent Tablets, Sambucol Black
Elderberry Chewable, Sambucol Black Elderberry Pastilles,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Daily Immune Drink Powder, and
Sambucol
Black Elderberry Advanced Immune Syrup for personal or
household
use and not for resale in California."
-- Missouri Sub-Classes:
-- Missouri NDI Claim Class:
"All persons who, within five years of the filing of this
Complaint, purchased the Defendant's Sambucol Black Elderberry
Original Syrup, Sambucol Black Elderberry Advanced Immune
Syrup,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Sugar Free Syrup, Sambucol Black
Elderberry Syrup for Kids, Sambucol Black Elderberry Gummies,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Gummies for Kids, Sambucol Black
Elderberry Advanced Immune Capsules, Sambucol Black Elderberry
Effervescent Tablets, Sambucol Black Elderberry Chewable
Tablets,
Sambucol Black Elderberry Pastilles (Throat Lozenges),
Sambucol
Black Elderberry Daily Immune Drink Powder, and Sambucol Black
Elderberry Infant Drops for personal or household use and not
for
resale in Missouri."
Excluded from all of the above-defined putative classes are:
(1)
the Defendant and any entity in which the Defendant has or had
a
controlling interest; (2) the officers and directors of the
Defendant at all relevant times, the members of the
Defendant's
officer's and director's immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; (3) any judge
to
whom this action is assigned and any members of such judges'
staffs and immediate family members; and (4) all persons or
entities that purchased the Class Products for purposes of
resale.
In addition, the Plaintiff Montiqueno Corbett seeks to be appointed
as class representative for the Nationwide Class and the California
Subclasses and the Plaintiff Rob Dobbs seeks to be appointed as
class representative for the Nationwide Class and the Missouri
Subclasses.
The Plaintiffs also move for an order appointing Rachel Soffin,
Nick Suciu III, and Trenton R. Kashima, of Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman PLLC as class counsel, pursuant to Rule 23(g).
Pharmacare is a manufacturer and supplier of Black Elderberry,
Black Elderberry Syrup, and Black Elderberry Gummies.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43vQHfH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trenton Kashima, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
Russell Busch, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
Erin Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
401 West Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (212) 946-8389
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
rsoffin@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com
mgeer@milberg.com
eruben@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
PHENOMEX INC: Hearing on Bid to Junk Ng Class Suit Set for June 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
PhenomeX 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 pending Ng securities class
suit dismissal motion hearing is scheduled on June 22, 2023.
In December 2021, Victor J. Ng filed a securities class action
complaint in the Northern District of California ("Securities Class
Action"), which was amended on July 25, 2022. The Securities Class
Action is on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired: (a) Berkeley Lights common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to certain July 2020 Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
offering documents and/or (b) securities of Berkeley Lights between
July 17, 2020 and January 5, 2022, inclusive. The complaint alleges
claims under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder as well
as §§11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. It names
as defendants the Company, certain of the Company's current and
former senior executives and directors, the underwriter firms that
sponsored the Company's July 2020 IPO, and three firms that
invested in the Company.
The Company believes that the assertions in the Securities Class
Action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.
The Company's pending Motion to Dismiss is set for hearing on June
22, 2023.
PhenomeX Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company
focuses on discovery and development of therapies and cell biology
for the prevention and treatment of diseases. PhenomeX serves
customers worldwide.
PIONEER BANCORP: Continues to Defend Brandes Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Bancorp. 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 Brandes putative class suit in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County.
On September 2, 2022, a putative class action complaints were filed
against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York for Albany County.
The first complaint was filed by Brandes & Yancy PLLC and
Ricardo’s Restaurant, Inc., two alleged clients of Southwestern
which seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former
Southwestern clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ,
AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the
alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay
complaints.
It assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious
interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a
declaratory judgment.
It also seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus
pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of
December 30, 2022.
On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss
the complaints.
On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints that
assert the same causes of action but include additional
allegations.
On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their
pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints.
The Pioneer Parties' deadline to file their renewed motions to
dismiss currently is June 26, 2023.
The Pioneer Parties vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in
the amended complaints.
Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. is a mid-tier stock holding company whose
wholly owned subsidiary is Pioneer Bank. The Bank is a New York
State chartered savings bank whose wholly owned subsidiaries are
Pioneer Commercial Bank, Anchor Agency, Inc. and Pioneer Financial
Services, Inc. It provides diversified financial services through
the Bank and its subsidiaries, with 22 offices in the Capital
Region of New York State.
PIONEER BANCORP: Continues to Defend OML Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Bancorp. 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 O'Malley's Oven putative class suit in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County.
On September 2, 2022, a putative class action complaints were filed
against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York for Albany County.
The complaint was filed by O'Malley's Oven LLC and Legat
Architects, Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and
ProData Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC
(collectively, "Cloud Payroll").
The two named plaintiffs in the complaint seek to assert claims on
behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients based on the
same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints
as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ,
Southwestern, and NatPay complaints.
It asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious
interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a
declaratory judgment.
It seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus
pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of
December 30, 2022.
On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss
the complaints.
On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints that
assert the same causes of action but include additional
allegations.
On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their
pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints.
The Pioneer Parties’ deadline to file their renewed motions to
dismiss currently is June 26, 2023.
The Pioneer Parties vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in
the amended complaints.
Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. is a mid-tier stock holding company whose
wholly owned subsidiary is Pioneer Bank. The Bank is a New York
State chartered savings bank whose wholly owned subsidiaries are
Pioneer Commercial Bank, Anchor Agency, Inc. and Pioneer Financial
Services, Inc. It provides diversified financial services through
the Bank and its subsidiaries, with 22 offices in the Capital
Region of New York State.
POINTSBET USA: Scheduling Order Deadline Extended in Gutman
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gutman v. PointsBet USA
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02137 (D. Colo), the Hon. Magistrate
Judge Susan Prose entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion
to extend the scheduling order deadline for joinder of parties and
amendment of pleadings, on which the Defendants took no position.
-- The Plaintiffs shall have until 30 days after the date of the
Court's ruling on the Defendants' currently pending Motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint and to Deny
Class Certification, in which to move for joinder of parties
and
to amend pleadings.
The nature of suit states torts -- diversity-fraud.
PointsBet is an ASX listed sports wagering operator and iGaming
provider.[CC]
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Berlanga Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO BERLANGA,
individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
POLARIS SALES, INC., a Minnesota corporation; POLARIS INDUSTRIES,
INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00949-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting class certification under Rule
23(a), 23 (b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the following class:
"All California residents, who, between in or about May 25,
2018,
and Present, purchased one or more models of Polaris RZR,
Ranger,
or General UTVs, in California, which were advertised with a
sticker on the ROPS system as complying with OSHA requirements
as
set forth under 29 C.F.R. § 1928.53, and which were tested
using
Gross Vehicle Weight, not Tractor Weight."
The Plaintiff also seeks class certification for the following
Subclass:
"All California residents, who, between in or about May 25,
2018,
and Present, purchased one or more models of Polaris RZR UTVs,
in
California, which were advertised with a sticker on the ROPS
system
as complying with OSHA requirements as set forth under 29 C.F.R.
§
1928.53, and which were tested using Gross Vehicle Weight, not
Tractor Weight.
The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of the
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of the
Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel.
Polaris is an american manufacturer of snowmobiles, atv, and
neighborhood electric vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oPgsst at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Frank M. Mihalic, Jr., Esq.
CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
8827 W Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 273-1230
E-mail: kristensen@cz.law
fmihalic@cz.law
- and –
Christopher W. Wood, Esq.
DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA
WOOD CAMPORA, LLP
20 Bicentennial Circle
Sacramento, CA 95826
E-mail: cwood@dbbwc.com
lsabadlab@dbbwc.com
dbbwc-eservice@dbbwc.com
- and –
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD
M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq.
Paul D. Collier, Esq.
Evan Ribot, Esq.
Kelsey Bleiweiss, Esq.
David A. Klein, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
pcollier@kirkland.com
evan.ribot@kirkland.com
kelsey.bleiweiss@kirkland.com
david.klein@kirkland.com
- and –
Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
R. Allan Pixton, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
191 North Wacker Dr., Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 705-7400
Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
E-mail: richardgodfrey@quinnemanuel.com
allanpixton@quinnemanuel.com
PRIME CLASSIC: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Dimeglio Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA DIMEGLIO, v. PRIME
CLASSIC DESIGN, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04098-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this
Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set
by the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that
an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for
a
motion or narrow the issues.
-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
(including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline
must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of
Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
-- Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on
any
defendant previously served with the summons and complaint,
must
serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all
defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such
service
with the Court.
Prime Classic is a direct importer and prime resource for high
quality reproductions of classic and modern furniture designs.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qiC8NR at no extra charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Bartee Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILLIAN BARTEE and LISA
BLEDSOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio corporations, Case No.
4:22-cv-00342-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting their motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
Progressive Advanced operates as an insurance firm. The Company
underwrites motor vehicle insurance policies.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45UHGyt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Chris Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Hank Bates, Esq.
Lee Lowther, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W 7th St
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
llowther@cbplaw.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Curran Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CURRAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-00878-NYW-MEH (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff's damages are less than $1,500. This is a relatively
small amount compared to the cost of litigating against a large
insurance company.
There are no manageability concerns—identifying Class members is
formulaic and based on objective, verifiable data in Progressive's
records. All evidence has been gathered and, except for deposing
Progressive's experts, if necessary, discovery is closed.
All that remains once a class is certified is notifying the Class
members, briefing on any issues that may be resolvable at summary
judgment, and then a trial. If the jury agrees with the Plaintiff's
evidence on the state of the market—as reflected through expert
testimony and empirical data—and, thus, finds that the PSA is
illegitimate and list prices are an appropriate starting point when
calculating ACV, identifying the damages amount by excising the
PSAs will be ministerial and formulaic.
If the jury disagrees with the Plaintiff's evidence, the claims of
all Class members will fail in a single stroke. Either way, this
case—and a trial—will be eminently manageable as a class
action.
Accordingly, classwide adjudication is the superior method for
resolving this dispute, the Plaintiff contends.
Progressive is an American insurance company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 26, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CqjgiK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
Orlando, FL 32814-0036
Telephone:(407) 603-6031
E-mail: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Chris Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Hank Bates, Esq.
Lee Lowther, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W 7th St
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
llowther@cbplaw.com
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Bajjuri Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pranay K. Bajjuri, et al.,
v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-00468-JCH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John C. Hinderaker
entered an order granting in part the defendants' motions for
judicial notice.
The Court further enter an order granting with prejudice the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk of the Court shall enter
judgment accordingly. The Plaintiffs request leave to amend under
Fed. Civ. P. Rule 15.
The Defendants oppose this request. The Court has already granted
the Plaintiffs leave to amend. The same Order provided substantial
feedback on the Plaintiffs' claims, some of which was not
addressed.
On October 30, 2020, Bajjuri brought a federal securities class
action suit against the Defendants. In July 2021, the Court
consolidated Bajjuri's case with a related case, retained Bajjuri
as the lead case, and the newly consolidated the Plaintiffs filed
their first amended complaint.
In March 2022, Raytheon moved to dismiss. The Court granted
Raytheon's motion with leave to amend. In December 2022, the
Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint.
Raytheon Technologies is an American multinational aerospace and
defense conglomerate headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N3MtoM at no extra charge.[CC]
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Summary Judgment Opposition Due August 1 in Bush
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bush v. Rust-Oleum
Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03268 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Laurel Beeler entered an order extending the briefing schedule for
the motion for summary judgment:
-- The opposition is due: Aug. 1, 2023
-- The reply is due: Aug. 15, 2023
-- The hearing is reset to: Aug. 31, 2023
The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud.
Rust-Oleum is a manufacturer of protective paints and coatings for
home and industrial use.[CC]
SAN JOSE, CA: Court Junks NAACP SJ Reconsideration Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned NAACP OF SAN JOSE/SILICON
VALLEY, et al., v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Case No.
4:21-cv-01705-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton
entered an order denying motion for leave to file motion for
reconsideration:
The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order denying class certification of
the proposed injunctive relief class.
The Plaintiffs first argue that the court "seems to have
misunderstood who plaintiffs request their proposed injunctive
relief would apply to, "making clear that it would apply "against
the City of San Jose only."
The Plaintiffs thus argue that this case is similar to the MIWON
case cited in the courts class certification order.
However, as pointed out in this court's previous order, the MIWON
plaintiffs "brought suit against only LAPD command personnel," and
did not pursue claims against individual line officers.
Although the plaintiffs in this case now appear to limit their
injunctive relief claim to apply only against the city, they
simultaneously wish to litigate individual damages claims against
individual officers, and it is the multiple-track nature of
plaintiffs' claims that distinguish it from the MIWON case.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ne2PML at no extra
charge.[CC]
SB NORTHWEST: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Oct. 19
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aloma Gongora v. SB
Northwest Investments, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00097 (D.
Or.), the Hon. Judge Youlee Yim You entered a class certification
scheduling order as follows:
-- The Motion to Certify Class / Collective Oct. 19, 2023
shall be filed by:
-- Regular Discovery shall be completed Nov. 22, 2023
by:
-- Dispositive Motions shall be filed by: Jan. 12, 2024
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Wasa Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sorrento Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Wasa federal securities
class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.
On May 26, 2020, Wasa Medical Holdings filed a putative federal
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, against the
Company, its President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Directors, Henry Ji, Ph.D., and its SVP of Regulatory
Affairs, Mark R. Brunswick, Ph.D.
The action alleges that the Company, Dr. Ji and Dr. Brunswick made
materially false and/or misleading statements to the investing
public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements
regarding STI-1499 and its ability to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus
infection and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations
of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees
and expert fees.
On June 11, 2020, Jeannette Calvo filed a second putative federal
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-01066-JAH-WVG, against the
same defendants alleging the same claims and seeking the same
relief.
On February 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California issued an order consolidating the cases and
appointing a lead plaintiff, Andrew Zenoff ("Plaintiff"), and lead
counsel.
On April 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
in accordance with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California's scheduling order.
Pursuant to that scheduling order, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on May 20, 2021 and Plaintiff filed its opposition to the
motion on July 2, 2021.
The defendants' reply was filed on August 4, 2021.
On or about November 18, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss with leave to amend.
On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated
complaint.
On December 30, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
first amended consolidated complaint.
Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order, the defendants filed
their opposition to the motion on February 7, 2022, and the
defendants filed their reply on February 28, 2022.
On April 11, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California issued an order granting the motion to
dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022.
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022.
On June 2, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California directed the clerk of the court to enter judgment in
favor of defendants and close the case.
On June 3, 2022, judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and
the case was closed.
On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 22-55641).
On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff/Appellant filed an opening brief.
On December 2, 2022, the defendants/appellees' filed their
answering brief.
On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff/Appellant filed his reply brief.
The Company is defending these matters vigorously.
About Sorrento Therapeutics
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.sorrentotherapeutics.com/
-- is a clinical and commercial stage biopharmaceutical company
developing new therapies to treat cancer, pain (non-opioid
treatments), autoimmune disease and COVID-19. Sorrento's
multimodal, multipronged approach to fighting cancer is made
possible by its extensive immuno-oncology platforms, including key
assets such as next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors
("TKIs"),
fully human antibodies ("G-MAB(TM) library"), immuno-cellular
therapies ("DAR-T(TM)"), antibody-drug conjugates ("ADCs"), and
oncolytic virus ("Seprehvec(TM)"). Sorrento is also developing
potential antiviral therapies and vaccines against coronaviruses,
including STI-1558, COVISHIELD(TM) and COVIDROPS(TM), COVI-MSCTM;
and diagnostic test solutions, including COVIMARK(TM).
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., and Scintilla Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No.
23-90085) on Feb. 13, 2023. Sorrento disclosed assets in excess of
$1 billion and liabilities of about $235 million as of Feb. 10,
2023.
Judge David R. Jones oversees the cases.
The Debtors tapped Latham & Watkins, LLP as bankruptcy counsel;
Jackson Walker, LLP as local counsel; Tran Singh, LLP as conflicts
counsel; and M3 Advisory Partners, LP as financial advisor. Mohsin
Y. Meghji, managing partner at M3, serves as the Debtors' chief
restructuring officer. Stretto Inc. is the claims, noticing and
solicitation agent.
Norton Rose Fulbright US, LLP and Milbank, LLP represent the
official committee of unsecured creditors appointed in the
Debtors'
Chapter 11 cases.
On April 10, 2023, the U.S. Trustee for Region 7 appointed an
official committee to represent the Debtors' equity security
holders.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Cert. Oral Argument Set for July 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN BOMBIN, et al., v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-01883-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered an order setting oral argument
on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for July 13,
2023.
Southwest Airlines is an airline based in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43EyRYg at no extra charge.[CC]
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Claude Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunlight Financial Holdings 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 Claude putative
securities fraud class suit in the Southern District of New York.
On March 10, 2023, a group of plaintiffs, including Claude
Mumpower, among others, filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
North Carolina (Case No. 22-50228) against Power Home Solar LLC,
Jayson Waller, Sunlight Financial LLC, Dividend Solar Finance LLC,
Goodleap LLC, Solar Mosaic Inc., CRB, Technology Credit Union,
Digital Federal Credit Union, Digital Federal Credit Union,
Addition Federal Credit Union, SLST Underlying Trust 2020-1, and
Does 1-10.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2023.
The lawsuit alleges that sales representatives of Power Home Solar
LLC made materially false and/or misleading statements to consumers
about the efficiency, effectiveness, benefits, and costs of the
solar panel systems being sold by Power Home Solar LLC, and misled
consumers about the availability of federal solar tax incentives.
The lawsuit seeks to hold the defendants involved in financing
consumers' purchases of solar panel systems, including but not
limited to Sunlight, liable for these alleged misrepresentations.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, rescission, compensatory
damages, treble damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and
the recovery of attorneys' fees. Sunlight believes the lawsuit and
the allegations contained therein are without merit and plans to
vigorously defend against them.
Sunlight claims to be a business-to-business-to-consumer POS
financing platform that provides residential solar and home
improvement contractors the ability to offer seamless POS
financing
to their customers when purchasing residential solar systems or
other home improvements.[BN]
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Fung Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunlight Financial Holdings 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 Fung putative
securities fraud class suit in the Southern District of New York.
On December 16, 2022, Kathie Fung filed a putative securities fraud
class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York (Case No.
1:22-cv-10658) against the Company and certain of our current and
former officers and directors.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about Sunlight’s business, operations, and
financial prospects. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that
Sunlight’s positive statements about Sunlight's business,
operations, and financial prospects were materially misleading
because Sunlight allegedly lacked effective internal controls and
oversight that led to Sunlight taking a non-cash advance
receivables impairment charge exceeding $30 million in September
2022. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and the recovery of
fees, including attorneys' fees. After the complaint was filed,
Matthew Millunchick was named as lead plaintiff. An amended
complaint is due May 22, 2023 and the Company's subsequent response
is due on or before July 21, 2023. Sunlight believes the lawsuit
and the allegations contained therein are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against the litigation.
Sunlight claims to be a business-to-business-to-consumer POS
financing platform that provides residential solar and home
improvement contractors the ability to offer seamless POS
financing
to their customers when purchasing residential solar systems or
other home improvements.[BN]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES
DISTRICT COUNCIL 82 HEALTH CARE FUND, a third-party healthcare
payor fund, ANNIE M. SNYDER, a California consumer, RICKEY D. ROSE,
a Missouri consumer, JOHN CARDARELLI, a New Jersey consumer,
MARLYON K. BUCKNER, a Florida consumer, and SYLVIE BIGORD, a
Massachusetts consumer, on behalf of themselves and ALL others
similarly situated, v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, a
Japanese corporation; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, Inc., an Illinois
corporation (fka TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA, Inc.); and
ELI LILLY & COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Case No.
2:17-cv-07223-JWH-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class:
a. The National TPP Class is certified. Painters is
preliminarily
appointed as class representative. R. Brent Wisner, Michael
L.
Baum, and Christopher L. Coffin are also preliminarily
appointed
as Class Counsel.
b. The Court declines to certify the California Consumer Class.
The parties are directed to confer forthwith and to file no later
than June 16, 2023, a Joint Status Report that provides the Court
with their jointly proposed case schedule or, if the parties cannot
agree, their respective competing proposed case schedules and the
reasons for their disagreement.
A Scheduling Conference is set for June 30, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 9D of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse, 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California.
Class Counsel is directed to propose a comprehensive notice plan
for the National TPP Class.
Like the National TPP Class discussed in Part III above, the Court
is persuaded that the California Consumer Class easily meets the
four requirements of Rule 23(a). The California Consumer Class also
satisfies the superiority prong of Rule 23(b)(3). But when it comes
to predominance, the role of individualized evidence appears far
more prominent, even though it varies slightly from claim to
claim.
The California Consumer Class also differs from the National TPP
Class in that, for the latter class, the Plaintiffs offer a
compelling regression analysis to circumvent individualized
evidence on the element of injury with respect to the Plaintiffs'
civil RICO claims. In contrast, the Plaintiffs do not offer such a
solution for their UCL, FAL, or CLRA claims.
The Plaintiffs instead rely on California law to provide them with
a presumption of reliance, but, as discussed, the facts here are
too dissimilar from those in Tobacco II to warrant a finding in the
Plaintiffs favor.
Lastly, the Court is unpersuaded by the Plaintiffs' perfunctory
efforts regarding their damages model. Until a model is
constructed, or an analysis is performed, the Plaintiffs receive a
grade of "incomplete" with respect to damages and the predominance
inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3). That missing piece—in tandem with
the milieu of individualized questions discussed above—tips the
balance against certifying the California Consumer Class for all
three of the Plaintiffs' claims.
The putative class action was originally filed as part of a
multi-district litigation pending in the Western District of
Louisiana, MDL No. 6:11-md-2299. The MDL Court consolidated various
claims asserted across the country related to the drug Actos.
This case differs from the MDL cases because the Plaintiffs here do
not assert personal injury or product liability claims. Rather,
they allege that Takeda and Lilly conspired to market Actos
fraudulently by concealing the association between its use and its
users' subsequent development of bladder cancer.
In September 2017, the MDL Court ordered this case transferred to
this district. Three months later, the Plaintiffs filed the
presently operative pleading -- the Amended Complaint—in which
they assert claims for relief under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 1961–1968 (RICO),
and state consumer fraud laws.
Takeda engages in the research and development, manufacture, import
and export sale, and marketing of pharmaceutical drugs.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WXEMoL at no extra charge.[CC]
TAMKO BUILDING: Plaintiffs Reply to Class Cert Bid Due July 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN MELNICK, BETH
MELNICK, LIA LOUTHAN, and SUMMERFIELD GARDENS CONDOMINIUM, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TAMKO
BUILDING PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02630-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for a briefing schedule on defendant's motion
for summary judgment:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply on their motion for class certification,
the Parties' oppositions to Daubert motions, and the
Plaintiffs'
opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment
shall
be filed by July 26, 2023.
--The Parties' replies on Daubert motions and the Defendant's
reply on its motion for summary judgment Motion shall be filed
by
August 25, 2023.
TAMKO is an independent manufacturer of residential roofing
shingles.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43sDHYp at no extra charge.[CC]
TETRA TECH: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Sept. 1
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA PARKER PENNINGTON,
et al., v. TETRA TECH EC, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05330-JD
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order setting
briefing schedule as follows:
1. Deadline to file Motion for Class June 16, 2023
Certification:
2. Deadline to file Opposition to Sept. 1, 2023
Motion for Class Certification:
3. Deadline to file Reply in Support Oct. 27, 2023
of Motion for Class Certification:
4. Hearing on Motion for Class Nov. 16, 2023
Certification:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qEGS0D at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin J. Boutin, Esq.
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
Donald j. Magilligan, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
2716 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 3088
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: (310) 392-2008
Facsimile: (310) 392-0111
The Defendant is represented by:
Davina Pujari, Esq.
Christopher A. Rheinheimer, Esq.
Christopher T. Casamassima, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
1 Front Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (628) 235-1002
Facsimile: (628) 235-1001
E-mail: davina.pujari@wilmerhale.com
chris.rheinheimer@wilmerhale.com
chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com
TIREHUB LLC: Class Action Settlement in Jones Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONSHEA JONES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TIREHUB LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00564-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Deborah Barnes entered an order granting the Plaintiff's February
2, 2023 motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.
Pursuant to Rule 23, and for purposes of settlement only, the
following class, estimated to consist of 458 employees, is
preliminarily and conditionally certified:
"The Plaintiff and all persons employed by the Defendant as
non-
exempt employees on or after February 10, 2017, to the date of
this
order, excluding any individual who opts out of the
settlement."
The Plaintiff Donshea Jones is preliminarily appointed as Class
Representative.
Cole & Van Note, by and through Lead Counsel Laura Van Note, are
preliminarily approved and appointed as Class Counsel.
CPT Group, Inc. is hereby appointed as the Settlement
Administrator.
The court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of
Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit filed in support of preliminary
approval. The court further approves the procedure for Class
Members to opt out of, and to object to, the Settlement as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.
The court directs the mailing of the Notice Packet in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and on the schedule set
forth above.
The following deductions will be subtracted from the gross
settlement amount:
-- $40,000 PAGA payment pursuant to California Labor Code
section
2698 et seq., distributed 75% to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency and 25% to Net Settlement Fund.
-- Administrative Expenses not to exceed $9,370.
-- Employee's Taxes and Required Withholdings including federal,
state, or local payroll taxes.
-- Class Attorney Fees of 33.5% of the gross settlement,
($183,315.00) and Expenses not to exceed $10,000.
-- Incentive Award to plaintiff of up to $5,000.
The Plaintiff commenced this action on February 10, 2021, by filing
a complaint in the Solano County Superior Court.
The matter was removed to this court on March 26, 2021, pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Plaintiff is proceeding
on a second amended complaint filed on August 16, 2021.
The second amended complaint alleged the following claims against
defendant Tirehub, LLC: (1) failure to pay wages; (2) failure to
provide meal and rest periods; (3) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; (4) failure to pay wages on termination;
(5) unfair business practices based on the foregoing; and (9)
California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oXWSdE at no extra charge.[CC]
TIVITY HEALTH: Parties Must File Mediation Notice by June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT STROUGO, v. TIVITY
HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order as follows:
1) On or before May 31, 2023, the Plaintiff shall file a
supplemental brief, setting forth a rigorous analysis of the
Rule 23(a) factors for class certification. In that same
document, the Defendants shall indicate whether they agree
with
the Plaintiff’s representations. The parties shall do so
with
specificity on each Rule 23(a) factor.
2) On June 30, 2023, the parties shall file a notice indicating
whether their mediation was successful.
Tivity Health is a provider of health improvement, fitness and
social engagement solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WR6PpG at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Eslinger Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Filing Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patsie Eslinger,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TMX
Finance LLC and TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc., Case No.
4:23-cv-00089-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order suspending or tolling the deadline for filing a motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint on April 5, 2023.
Pursuant to Local Rule 23.2 for the Southern District of Georgia,
the Plaintiff is required to file her motion for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 no later
than "90 days after the filing of a complaint in a class action."
The current deadline is Tuesday, July 4, 2023. On April 7, 2023,
the TMX, was served with the Complaint making the responsive
pleading due April 28, 2023.
On April 10, 2023, TMX was served with the Complaint, making the
responsive pleading due May 1, 2023. On April 24, 2023, the
Defendants filed its Consent Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Complaint which was granted on April 25, 2023 allowing
the Defendant through June 12, 2023 within which to file a response
to the Complaint.
At present, the Plaintiff's requirements under Rule 23 could not be
satisfied with a skeletal, perfunctory motion for class
certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CdofmT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy C. Daugherty, Esq.
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: adaugherty@thefinleyfirm.com
mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
TMX FINANCE: Mahone Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESARAY MAHONE and LEON
DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. and TMX FINANCE LLC d/b/a
"TITLEMAX," "TITLEBUCKS," and "INSTALOAN," Case No.
4:23-cv-00102-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order suspending or tolling the deadline for filing a
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs filed this Class Action Complaint on April 14, 2023.
Pursuant to Local Rule 23.2 for the Southern District of Georgia,
the Plaintiffs are required to file their Motion for Class
Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 no later
than "90 days after the filing of a complaint in a class action."
The current deadline is Thursday, July 13, 2023. On April 17, 2023,
the Defendant TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc., was served with
the Complaint making the responsive pleading due May 8, 2023. On
April 20, 2023, the Defendant TMX Finance, LLC was served with the
Complaint, making the responsive pleading due May 11, 2023.
On May 3, 2023, the Defendants filed its Consent Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint which was granted on May
5, 2023 allowing the Defendant through June 22, 2023 within which
to file a response to the Complaint.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Lkx1p at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amy C. Daugherty, Esq.
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: adaugherty@thefinleyfirm.com
mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
TMX FINANCE: Ritter Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLI RITTER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TMX FINANCE
CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. and TMX FINANCE LLC d/b/a "TITLEMAX,"
"TITLEBUCKS," and "INSTALOAN," Case No. 4:23-cv-00084-RSB-CLR (S.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order suspending or
tolling the deadline for filing a motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint on April 5, 2023.
Pursuant to Local Rule 23.2 for the Southern District of Georgia,
the Plaintiff is required to file her motion for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 no later
than "90 days after the filing of a complaint in a class action. "
The current deadline is Tuesday, July 4, 2023. On April 7, 2023,
the TMX, was served with the Complaint making the responsive
pleading due April 28, 2023.
On April 10, 2023, TMX was served with the Complaint, making the
responsive pleading due May 1, 2023. On April 24, 2023, the
Defendants filed its Consent Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Complaint which was granted on April 25, 2023 allowing
the Defendant through June 12, 2023 within which to file a response
to the Complaint.
At present, the Plaintiff's requirements under Rule 23 could not be
satisfied with a skeletal, perfunctory motion for class
certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CeMrFx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy C. Daugherty, Esq.
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: adaugherty@thefinleyfirm.com
mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
TMX FINANCE: Ross Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Helena Michelle Ross,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TMX
FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. and TMX FINANCE LLC d/b/a
"TITLEMAX," "TITLEBUCKS," and "INSTALOAN," Case No.
4:23-cv-00078-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order suspending or tolling the deadline for filing a
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint on April 4, 2023.
Pursuant to Local Rule 23.2 for the Southern District of Georgia,
the Plaintiff is required to file her motion for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 no later
than "90 days after the filing of a complaint in a class action. "
The current deadline is Tuesday, July 4, 2023. On April 6, 2023,
the TMX, was served with the Complaint making the responsive
pleading due April 27, 2023.
On April 10, 2023, TMX was served with the Complaint, making the
responsive pleading due May 1, 2023. On April 24, 2023, the
Defendants filed its Consent Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Complaint which was granted on April 25, 2023 allowing
the Defendant through June 12, 2023 within which to file a response
to the Complaint.
At present, the Plaintiff's requirements under Rule 23 could not be
satisfied with a skeletal, perfunctory motion for class
certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45MT2Ey at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy C. Daugherty, Esq.
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: adaugherty@thefinleyfirm.com
mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
TORCH ELECTRONICS: June 30 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK ROMANO, et al., v.
TORCH ELECTRONICS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04043-BCW (W.D.
Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an
extension of time to file Suggestions in Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.
Accordingly, the Defendants request the Court grant them until and
including June 30, 2023, to file their opposition briefs to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs Patrick Romano, Joshua Wilson, Krystal Christensen,
Jeffrey Cordaro, Carmen Weaver, Monica McGee, and Mary Bolden
consent to the requested extension of time.
The Plaintiffs initially filed the Motion for Class Certification
on May 5, 2023. As described in the Parties' recently submitted
joint proposed scheduling order, counsel for the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants agree that limited class certification-related discovery
is appropriate and would be helpful prior to completion of the
class certification briefing process.
As outlined in the Parties' proposed scheduling order and relevant
to the timing of the Defendants' opposition briefs, the parties
have agreed to certification-related depositions of the named the
Plaintiffs.
The purpose of this motion is not to cause undue delay; it is made
to allow the Defendants sufficient time to analyze the issues
raised in the certification motion and conduct
certification-related discovery in aid of their responses.
An extension to allow for certification-related discovery will
assist the Court in conducting the "rigorous analysis" required for
certification motions.
Torch Electronics is a slot machine company that offers gaming
options in truck stops and gas stations across the state of
Missouri.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oIZCvq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe D. Jacobson, Esq.
JACOBSON PRESS P.C.
222 South Central Ave., Suite 550
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 899-9789
Direct: (314) 899-9790
Facsimile: (314) 899-0282
E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com
- and -
Gene J. Brockland, Esq.
Christopher O. Miller, Esq.
AMUNDSEN DAVIS LLC
120 S. Central Ave., Suite 700
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 719-3700
Facsimile: (314) 719-3721
E-mail: gbrockland@amundsendavislaw.com
comiller@amundsendavislaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Todd P. Graves, Esq.
J. Aaron Craig, Esq.
GRAVES GARRETT LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2700
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 256-3181
Facsimile: (816) 256-5958
E-mail: tgraves@gravesgarrett.com
acraig@gravesgarrett.com
- and -
Justin K. Gelfand, Esq.
Ian T. Murphy, Esq.
MARGULIS GELFAND
7700 Bonhomme Ave., Ste. 750
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 390-0234
Facsimile: (314) 485-2264
E-mail: justin@margulisgelfand.com
ian@margulisgelfand.com
- and -
Matthew A. Radefeld, Esq.
FRANK, JUENGEL & RADEFELD ATTORNEYS
AT LAW, P.C.
7710 Carondelet Ave., Suite 350
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-7777
E-mail: mradefeld@fjrdefense.com
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 14
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD W. TREDINNICK v.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00423-ALM
(E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos L. Mazzant entered an order a
scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for motions to transfer: June 2, 2023
-- Deadline to file amended pleadings: July 18, 2023
-- Deadline to respond to amended Aug. 18, 2023
pleadings:
-- Initial mediation must occur by Sept. 4, 2023
this date:
-- The Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Sept. 14, 2023
Class Certification and any supporting
expert report(s), and produce all
documents from the proposed class
representatives relevant to class
certification:
-- The Plaintiff shall produce expert Sept. 14, 2023
documents relevant to class
certification required under
Section 3 of the Discovery Order:
-- Deadline for depositions related to Oct. 7, 2023
the Plaintiff’s motion for class
certification, including depositions
of class representatives and any
expert(s) supporting the Plaintiff's
motion:
-- The Defendant shall file Opposition Nov. 14, 2023
to Class Certification, together
with any supporting expert report(s):
-- The Defendant shall produce expert Nov. 14, 2023
documents relevant to class
certification required under
Section 3 of the Discovery Order:
-- Deadline for deposition(s) of the Nov. 24, 2023
Defendant’s expert(s) related to
class certification:
-- The Plaintiff shall file Reply in Dec. 6, 2023
Support of his Motion for Class
Certification:
-- The Defendant shall file Surreply Dec. 22, 2023
in Opposition to the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification:
-- Class Certification Hearing: Jan. 5, 2024
-- Close of Fact Discovery: Feb. 1, 2024
Transamerica operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers
life, health, and dental insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43ymaxV at no extra
charge.[CC]
UMPQUA BANK: Bid to Exclude Class Notice OK'd in Camenisch
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELA CAMENISCH, et al.,
v. UMPQUA BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-05905-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting motion to exclude
class notice:
The Court said, "Nothing in this order resolves whether the
structured database, records retrieved therefrom, or any other
evidence regarding that database or its contents will be admissible
at trial. Although the Defendant insists the structured database is
"expert work product, "that is not independently admissible in the
absence of the underlying records, there appears to be at least an
argument that the database constitutes business records of PFI --
it was not created by expert witnesses for purposes of this
litigation, but by persons employed by PFI itself. The structured
database was a means of organizing and making useable PFI's
information so that PFI could carry out its duties to its investors
(and other creditors) to the extent still possible, given its
remaining financial assets. Whether the structured database and
information contained therein is admissible on that or any other
basis, however, remains to be decided."
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Defendant's motion to
exclude certain documents it contends were not timely disclosed or
produced, or, in the alternative to reopen discovery, and the
Plaintiffs' motion for an order resolving the parties' disputes
regarding the form of class notice are suitable for disposition
without oral argument, and the hearing set for June 1, 2023, is
vacated. In light of an ongoing trial in an unrelated criminal
matter, the further Case Management Conference set for that date is
continued to Thursday, Jun 29, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., with a joint
statement to be filed one week in advance.
In opposition to class certification, the Defendant argued, among
other things, that the proposed class definition was unduly broad
insofar as it could be read to sweep in the PFI entities'
commercial lenders.
The order granting class certification mischaracterized the
contours of the parties' dispute, and inadvertently drew a line
between "corporate entities" and "individual investors, " rather
than between entities in a commercial lending relationship with PFI
and persons who invested in the various investment vehicles offered
by PFI. Seizing on the language in the order, the Defendant now
asserts it only intended to offer "commercial lenders" as one
example of overbreadth in the proposed class definition.
Umpqua Bank is a financial holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Niowv6 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNION CARBIDE: Class Cert. Replies in Sommerville Suit Due July 24
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE ANN SOMMERVILLE, et
al., v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00878 (S.D.W.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Joseph R. Goodwin entered a fifth amended
scheduling order as follows:
Responses to Daubert motions/opposition to July 10, 2023
class certification:
Replies in support of Daubert/class July 24, 2023
certification:
Filing of dispositive motions: Aug. 18, 2023
Responses to dispositive motions: Sept. 1, 2023
Reply to response to dispositive motion: Sept. 8, 2023
Settlement meeting deadline: Oct. 5, 2023
Filing of motions in limine: Oct. 12, 2023
Responses to motions in limine: Oct. 19, 2023
The Plaintiff draft of pretrial order Oct. 5, 2023
to the Defendant:
Integrated pretrial order filed by Oct. 12, 2023
the Defendant:
Pretrial conference: Oct. 30, 2023
Proposed jury instructions filed: Jan. 2, 2024
Final Settlement conference: Jan. 8, 2024
Trial: Jan. 9, 2024
Union Carbide produces chemicals and polymers that undergo one or
more further conversions by customers before reaching consumers.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NmAYdn at no extra charge.[CC]
UNION CARBIDE: Responses to Class certification Bid Due July 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK LETART, et al., v.
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00877 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Joseph R. Goodwin entered a fifth amended scheduling
order as follows:
-- Deposition deadline and close of May 30, 2023
discovery:
-- Filing of Daubert motions and any June 6, 2023
motion to certify a class:
-- Responses to Daubert motions/opposition July 5, 2023
to class certification:
-- Replies in support of Daubert/class July 17, 2023
certification:
-- Filing of dispositive motions: Aug. 11, 2023
-- Responses to dispositive motions: Aug. 25, 2023
-- Reply to response to dispositive motion: Sept. 1, 2023
-- Settlement meeting deadline: Sept. 29, 2023
-- Filing of motions in limine: Oct. 5, 2023
-- Responses to motions in limine: Oct. 12, 2023
-- The Plaintiff draft of pretrial Sept. 29, 2023
order to the defendant:
-- Integrated pretrial order filed Oct. 5, 2023
by the defendant:
-- Pretrial conference: Oct. 19,
2023,
-- Final Settlement conference: Nov. 6, 2023
Union Carbide produces chemicals and polymers that undergo one or
more further conversions by customers before reaching consumers.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N88PWi at no extra charge.[CC]
UNION SECURITY: Completion of Discovery Depositions Due August 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE
LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., SUN LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA AND MERAKEY, USA, Case No.
2:21-cv-03805-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone
entered a fourth amended scheduling order as follows:
1. The Parties will have thirty days following a decision on the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to complete fact
discovery.
2. Any expert reports are due no later than June 6, 2023. If an
expert report is intended solely to contradict or rebut
evidence
on the same subject matter identified by another party,
counsel
shall serve such report on counsel for every other party no
later than July 7, 2023.
3. Any party expecting to offer opinion testimony from lay
witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701 with
respect
to the issues of liability and damages shall, at the time
required for submission of information and/or reports for
expert
witnesses, serve opposing parties with details and/or
documents
covering the lay opinions of the Rule 701 witnesses.
4. Any discovery depositions of expert witnesses shall be
completed
by August 11, 2023.
5. Any motions for summary judgment and/or Daubert motions shall
be
filed and served on or before September 12, 2023. Any
oppositions to summary judgment shall be filed no later than
October 13, 2023, and Reply Briefs in Further Support of
Summary
Judgment shall be filed by November 13, 2023.
6. If the parties do not plan on filing summary judgment and/or
Daubert motions, they shall so report to the Court (Chambers,
Room 10614) on or before September 12, 2023.
Union Security is a national provider of Medicare Supplement
insurance solutions that help customers manage and budget for their
health care needs.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oMuLxQ at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED PARCEL: $1.37MM Class Settlement in Diaz Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR DIAZ, et al., v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al. Case No. 1:22-cv-00246-CDB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of class and representative action
settlement:
1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement and the Settlement Class based upon the terms set
forth in the filed Settlement Agreement.
2. The Court conditionally certifies and approves, for
settlement
purposes only the following Settlement Class:
"All current and former Part-Time Supervisors, including
employees with similar job titles and/or duties, who worked
for
the Defendant within the State of California during the
Settlement Class Period, defined as from April 19, 2018, and
through the date of the Preliminary Settlement Approval, and
who
at least once during the Settlement Class Period took paid
vacation under UPS's vacation policy, and whose average
straight-time daily paid hours exceeded 5.5 hours per day for
the prior Vacation Year, but whose vacation pay was limited
to
5.5 hours per day, or 27.5 hours per week of vacation in the
Vacation Year."
3. The Settlement falls within the range of reasonableness and
appears to be presumptively valid, subject only to any
objections that may be raised at the final fairness hearing
and
final approval by this Court.
4. The Court makes the following preliminary findings for
settlement purposes only:
5. The Plaintiffs shall make the necessary changes identified
by
the Court in the Notice to Class Members attached to the
Settlement Agreement.
6. The Court shall approve the Notice to Class Members attached
to
the Settlement Agreement with the requested corrections
implemented.
7. The Court approves the procedure for Settlement Class Members
to
request exclusion from the Settlement as set forth in the
Notice
to Class Members.
8. The Court approves the procedure for Settlement Class Members
to
object to the Settlement as set forth in the Class Notice to
Class Members.
9. The Court directs the mailing of the Notice to Class Members
by
U.S. first class mail to the Settlement Class Members in
accordance with the Implementation Schedule.
10. The Court confirms Oscar Diaz and Jace O'Guinn as the Class
Representatives.
11. The Court approves the Class Representative incentive award
for
the Plaintiffs preliminarily up to the amount of $6,500 each,
subject to a petition and review at the Final Approval and
Fairness Hearing.
12. The Court approves Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator.
13. The Court holds approval of the Plaintiffs’ California
Private
Attorneys General Act, Labor Code sections 2698, et seq.
(PAGA),
claim in abeyance.
14. The Court orders the following Implementation Schedule for
further proceedings:
-- Deadline for the Defendant to June 23, 2023
Provide Class Information to
Settlement Administrator:
-- Deadline to Mail Notice to Class July 14, 2023
Members:
-- Deadline for Class Members to Aug. 28, 2023
Postmark and/or Fax any Request
for Exclusion:
-- Deadline for Class Members to Aug. 28, 2023
Postmark and/or Fax any
Objections:
-- Deadline for Class Counsel to Sept. 18, 2023
file Motion for Final Approval
of Class Settlement:
-- Deadline for Class Counsel to Sept. 18, 2023
file Motion for Class Counsel
Award:
-- Deadline for Class Counsel and/or Oct. 18, 2023
the Defendant's Counsel to file a
response to any objections:
-- Final Approval Hearing Nov. 1, 2023
Pursuant to the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
and representative action settlement, the parties agree to a gross
settlement amount of $1,375,000.00 for the defined class.
The Plaintiff Oscar Diaz was employed by the Defendant from, July
28, 1995, to present and has served as a Part-Time Operations
Supervisor/Part-Time Local Sort Supervisor since 2000.
United Parcel provides packaging and shipping services worldwide.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NifT3P at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LEWIS, et al., v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02182-RCL
(D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
extension of time, to and through July 25, 2023, to file their
initial response to the Plaintiffs' amended complaint and motion to
certify class and appoint lead counsel.
On July 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, bringing
claims for a writ of mandamus, ultra vires action, violations of
the Administrative Procedure Act, and a writ of habeas corpus
against the Defendants.
On September 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
and a motion to certify the class and a motion to appoint lead
counsel. The Defendants' response to the amended complaint and
motions are due on May 26, 2023.
United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible for
granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases
of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JlwGRh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew M. Graves, Esq.
Stephanie R. Johnson, Esq.
Brian P. Hudak,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
601 D Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
E-mail: Stephanie.Johnson5@usdoj.gov
USAA FEDERAL: Parties in Bulls Seek Extension of Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP BULLS, DEAN BRINK,
CARMIN NOWLIN, NICHOLAS PADAO, AND RAPHAEL RILEY, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS
BANK, and USAA SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 5:21-cv-00488-BO (E.D.N.C.),
the Plaintiffs jointly move the Court to extend the briefing
schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel to make the Defendants' response due
by June 15, 2023 and the Plaintiffs Reply due by July 13, 2023.
-- On March 28, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification. On April 7, 2023, the Defendants filed a Motion
for Extension of Time to Respond, requesting a 120-day
extension
of time to respond.
-- The Court partially granted that motion, setting the
Defendants'
response deadline as May 30, 2023, and the Plaintiffs' Reply
deadline as June 20, 2023.
-- The parties have previously agreed to extend the deadlines of
the
Scheduling Order, and currently, the deadline for all
discovery,
except class damages discovery, is February 9, 2024.
-- Dispositive motions are due March 8, 2024.
-- Part of the Defendants' argument for an extension of time was
for
the opportunity to depose the named the Plaintiffs.
-- The Defendants conducted the depositions of four of the five
the
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' expert between May 10, 2023,
and
May 19, 2023.
-- On May 17, 2023, the Plaintiff Nicholas Padao experienced a
family emergency and was unable to attend his deposition, and
the
ongoing emergency has precluded scheduling his deposition.
-- On May 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendants that
Sgt.
Padao would be available on May 30 or June 1 for a
rescheduled
deposition.
-- On May 24, 2023, the parties agreed to an extension to the
briefing schedule in order to allow time for the Defendants to
conduct Sgt. Padao's deposition with 14 days to process all
transcripts, and for the Plaintiffs to schedule and conduct
the
depositions of the Defendants' witnesses thereafter.
USAA Federal operates as a full service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ng87ra at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew D. Ballew, Esq.
Robert E. Zaytoun, Esq.
John R. Taylor, Esq.
ZAYTOUN BALLEW & TAYLOR, PLLC
3130 Fairhill Drive, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 832-6690
Facsimile: (919) 831-4793
E-mail: MBallew@zaytounlaw.com
RZaytoun@zaytounlaw.com
JTaylor@zaytounlaw.com
- and -
Knoll D. Lowney, Esq.
Claire E. Tonry, Esq.
Alyssa L. Koepfgen, Esq.
SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
2317 E. John Street
Seattle, WA 98112
Telephone: (206) 860-2883
Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
E-mail: Knoll@smithandlowney.com
Claire@smithandlowney.com
The Defendants are represented by:
F. Hill Allen, Esq.
THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P.
150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1800
Raleigh, N.C. 27602-1151
Telephone: (919) 821-4711
Facsimile: (919) 829-1583
E-mail: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com
- and -
Daniel T. Plunkett, Esq.
Megan S. Ben’Ary, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Seewald, Esq.
Andrew M. Albritton, Esq.
McGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC
601 Poydras St., Suite 1200
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 596-2778
Facsimile: (504) 910-9542
E-mail: dplunkett@mcglinchey.com
mbenary@mcglinchey.com
jseewald@mcglinchey.com
aalbritton@mcglinchey.com
VALLEY BROOK, OK: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMIESHA HILL, et al. v.
TOWN OF VALLEY BROOK, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00097-SLP (W.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge Scott L. Palk entered an order that the
deadlines in the Second Amended Phase I Schedule Order are extended
for a period of 120 days:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification on
or
before September 28, 2023.
-- Any response(s) to that motion shall be filed on or before
November 14, 2023.
-- The filing of any reply in support of the class certification
motion shall be governed by the Local Civil Rules of this
Court.
-- Further deadlines may be established in a Phase II Specialized
Scheduling Order after the Courts ruling on the
motion for class certification.
Valley Brook is a town in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and is part of
the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45TlRzb at no extra charge.[CC]
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Court Junks Levine Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LEVINE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00261-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Scott T. Varholak
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not met his
burden to establish that "questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members. "
The Court entered an order that:
1. The motion to decertify is granted and the and the claims of
all opt-in the plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice;
2. The motion to certify [#261] is denied; and
3. A status conference is set for May 31, 2023, at 2:30 pm in
courtroom a 402 before magistrate judge scott t. varholak.
The Plaintiff Levine was employed as an Assistant Store Managers
(ASM) in a store located in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, from
approximately March 2018 to April 2019.
Mr. Levine, on behalf of himself and others similarly situation,
filed the instant suit on January 31, 2020. The operative Complaint
alleges that Natural Grocers violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA) by improperly
classifying Levine and other ASMs as exempt employees and denying
them overtime.
1
On November 6, 2020, the Court granted Mr. Levine's Motion for
Conditional Certification, and conditionally certified the
following collective for the purposes of Mr. Levine's FLSA claims:
"All current and former ASMs who worked for Natural Grocers in
the
United States at any time on or after January 31, 2017, to the
present, and who were classified as exempt from overtime
compensation the Defendant is a Colorado corporation that owns
and
operates more than 150 grocery stores in 19 states."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42Eu8Eh at no extra charge.[CC]
VOLVO CARS: Class Cert Oral Argument in Middien to Proceed July 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIDDIEN v. VOLVO CARS OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03760 (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order that oral argument on
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall proceed on
July 19, 2023.
-- Each party shall submit a confidential settlement position
letter
to the Court, ex parte, providing the status of any settlement
discussions and the party's position as to settlement. This
letter shall be provided via fax to Chambers, by June 15,
2023.
-- The amended motion for class certification and the motion to
preclude expert opinions of Dr. D.C. Sharp are
administratively
terminated pending oral argument on the matter and shall be
deemed reinstated upon oral argument.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Diversity-Fraud.
Volvo Cars manufactures, markets, and sells automobiles.[CC]
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; CAROL
TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00166-FLA-KK (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
the following class:
"All non-exempt employees of the Defendant's Walmart stores in
California during the period of November 17, 2016, through the
date
of class certification."
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville,
Arkansas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs motion dated May 26, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43x6JGr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
Max N. Sloves, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
mstahle@maternlawgroup.com
msloves@maternlawgroup.com
WAWA INC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition to Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06019-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order permitting it to file portions of its
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, portions of its Memorandum of Law in Support of its
Motion for Summary Judgment, and portions of its Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts, as well as certain filed exhibits, under
seal:
1. Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 10, Wawa's Opposition
to
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due on or
before May 26, 2023.
2. Wawa plans to file its Opposition, as well as a Motion for
Summary Judgment, on this Court's ECF system on May 26,
2023.
3. Wawa's Opposition and Motion for Summary Judgment are
supported
by exhibits which need to be filed under seal.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 26, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CnPTO7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gregory T. Parks, Esq.
Ezra D. Church, Esq.
Kristin M. Hadgis, Esq.
Terese Schireson, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
E-mail: gregory.parks@morganlewis.com
ezra.church@morganlewis.com
kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com
terese.schireson@morganlewis.com
WESTCHESTER PARKWAY: Bid for Class Certification Due Jan. 12, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES EDGAR, v.
WESTCHESTER PARKWAY CONSULTING LLC, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-00533-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A.
Jolson entered a scheduling order AS follows:
-- Any motion to amend or join additional Nov. 3, 2023
parties due by:
-- Discovery due by: Nov. 24, 2023
-- Any motion for class certification Jan. 12, 2024
due by:
-- Dispositive motions due by: Jan. 12, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P0ndlG at no extra charge.[CC]
WEXFORD HEALTH: Surles Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SURLES v. WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01376-DSC (W.S Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification
of, and authorizing notice to be sent to, the following
collective:
"All non-exempt employees who worked for, on or behalf of,
Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., in the United States at any time during
the
Kronos ransomware attack, on or about December 11, 2021, to the
present."
To facilitate the purposes of the Fair Labor Standanrds Act's
(FLSA's) collective action provisions, the Plaintiff requests the
Court expeditiously grant the instant Motion and
(1) conditionally certify the proposed collective of employees;
(2) approve the Notice and Consent forms attached to the
Plaintiff's Memorandum as Exhibit 8;
(3) authorize Class Counsel to send notice to the Putative
Class
Members via mail, email, and text message, along with an
identical reminder notice;
(4) authorize Class Counsel to contact certain Putative Class
Members by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and
Consent forms are returned as undeliverable;
(5) authorize a sixty-day notice period for the Putative Class
Members to join the case; and
(6) order the Defendants to produce the contact information for
each of the Putative Class Members within 10 days of the
Court's order in a usable electronic format, such as Excel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 26, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45QDcsC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa J. White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.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 ***