/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/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 ***