/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230622.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 22, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 125 Headlines 1226 SECOND AVENUE: Quaglia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages 476 K: Parties Seek to Certify Class of Hosts in Koska Suit ADVANCE MAGAZINE: Agrees to Settle Intern Class Action for $5.85M ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Anderson Seeks Class Action Certification ALDI INC: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Fruit and Grain Bars AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Illegal Personal Info Collection AMERICAN FEDERATION: Johnson Appeals Court Orders to D.C. Cir. ARGO GROUP: Cops/Firemen Retirement Fund Hits SEC Filings AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM: Faces Pry Suit Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages BACUS FOODS: Seeks to Stay Briefing of Holder Conditional Cert Bid BANK OF GREENE COUNTY: Settlement in Broockmann Gets Initial Nod BERRY CORP: Seeks Evidentiary Hearing on Class Certification Bid BGC PARTNERS: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in Delaware Court BIG LOTS: Court Junks Cornejo Bid for Class Certification BOOT BARN HOLDINGS: CA Court OKs Settlement in Labor Suit BP EXPLORATION: Spencer Claims in B3 Case Dismissed With Prejudice BP EXPLORATION: Treme's Claims in B3 Case Dismissed With Prejudice BP EXPLORATION: Yarbrough's B3 Case Claims Dismissed With Prejudice CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Fulton Seeks Conditional Status of Action CARE AT HOME: Nqadolo Files Bid for Rule 23 Class Certification CAREDX INC: Plumbers' Fund Files Securities Suit in CA Court CARGILL INCORPORATED: Tavares Must Reply to Opposition by July 10 CHICAGO, IL: Class Certification in Race Discrimination Suit Denied CHIFLEZ CORP: Sarmiento Sues Over General Laborers' Unpaid Wages CIGNA HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to Strike Defendants' Objection CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Myers Bid to Extend Deadlines Partly OK'd CORPORATE SOLUTIONS: Court Directs Filing of Class Discovery Plan COX INDUSTRIES: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 17 CREDIT SUISSE: Gomez Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. CUTTING EDGE: Pereira Sues Over Landscapers' Unpaid Overtime DINGDONG (CAYMAN): McCormack's Bid to Reopen Lead Appointment Nixed DISTROKID: Faces Class Suit Over Handling Copyright Claims DON HERRINGTON: Class Cert Oral Arguments Set for June 22 DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Benson Class Counsel Given $121.5MM in Fees DRIVER PROVIDER: Seeks Decertification of Class in Salazar Suit EMPIRE DISTRIBUTION: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Files Opposition to Torres Class Cert Bid EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Settlement in Meeks Suit Has Prelim. OK FLORIDA: Underfunds HBCU State Schools, Class Suit Says FORT BELVOIR: Plaintiffs File Bid For Class Certification FORT LAUDERDALE: Chinchilla Sues Over Unprotected Patients' Info GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks to Seal Redactions in Ewalt Class Cert Bid GEO GROUP: Parties Stipulation to Continue Briefing Deadlines OK'd GLENN O. HAWBAKER: Bid for Class Suit Certification Granted GREENIX PEST: Hutt Loses Bid for Conditional Class Certification GROUP HEALTH: Midthun-Hensen Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit HENKEL CORP: E.D. Mo. Refuses to Remand Waller Suit to State Court HOME DEPOT: Class Action Settlement in Carlson Suit Gets Final Nod HUMANA INC: Court Certifies Class in Moore Suit INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles McDermid Suit in PA Court INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Argues No Obligation to Disclose Misconduct INTEGRITY HOME: Faces Neff Suit Over Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Various Suits by Health Providers JOYCE CAMPBELL: Court Certifies Class in Caddell Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Agrees to Settle Epstein Survivors' Suit for $290M KANKAKEE HOSPITALITY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 15 KEY INSTALLATION: Spradlin Seeks Conditional Status of Collective KIM KARDASHIAN: Motion to Dismiss Unfair Competition Claims Denied KSF ACQUISITION: McCracken Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal LOOP INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Suits in NY Court Consolidated LOVE TRAVEL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Residual Amount of Fuel MACROGENICS INC: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of BRERS Class Suit MANAGED CARE: Faces Class Suit Over Massive Data Breach MASTERCARD INC: UK Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Interchange Fees MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST: Faces Securities Suit in Alabama Court MERCER UNIVERSITY: Lehnes Sues Over Failure to Secure PII METLIFE GROUP: Suit Seeks to Certify 401(k) Plan Participant Class MGM RESORTS: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach in Quebec NELSON-RIGG USA: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEOGENOMICS INC: Faces Goldenberg Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing NEW YORK: Court Overrules Talukder's Objections NEWREZ LLC: Fails to Provide Audio Recordings, Ortiz Suit Says NIKE USA: Faces Ellis Class Suit Over Sustainability Claims NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Allowed to File Class Exhibits Under Seal NOVAVAX INC: Sinnathurai Class Suit in Maryland Ongoing OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid OMNI FINANCIAL: Wood Class Suit Tossed for Failure to State a Claim OREGON: Court Orders Deposition of Former Governor in COVID-19 Suit ORLEANS PARISH: La. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Johnson Suit PETSMART LLC: Biometric Privacy Class Suit Settles for $424,000 POKE FIDI: Must Oppose Yuwono Class Cert Bid by June 30 POOLTOGETHER INC: Court Dismisses Kent's Illegal Lottery Class Suit QUEBEC: Supreme Court Authorized Class Suit Over Damages RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs' Bid for Reconsideration Tossed RESURGENT CAPITAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss in Williams Suit RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL: Appellate Court Reverses $1.7M Fee Award ROMAN CATHOLIC: Class Suit Over Sexual Abuse Reaches Settlement RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Settles Birmingham Pension Fund Suit for $5-M S1 SECURITY: Faces Prieto Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit SCENIC LUXURY: Settles Suit Over Extreme River Levels, Flooding SHERMAN COUNSELING: Mittelsteadt Sues Over Counselors' Unpaid Wages SHOPIFY INC: Faces $130-M Class Suit Over Severance Pay Breach SOUTH AFRICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Cholera Outbreak SPRUCE POWER HOLDING: Securities Suit Filed in DE Court Over Merger SPRUCE POWER HOLDING: Securities Suits Consolidated in NY Court ST. DOMINIC: Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed in Boswell Suit STANDARD BIOTOOLS: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Suit STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Suit Over Illegal Personal Info Collection TESLA INC: Black Automobile Workers Sue Over Racial Abuse TEXAS HEALTH: Langhan Files Bid to Certify Class of Female Nurses TRADEMARK DOUGLAS: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Nov. 2 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Sought TYSON FOODS: Bid to Flip Denial of Appointment in Guo Suit Nixed UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Allowed to File Supplement in Opposition URS MIDWEST: Parties Seek Decision on Pending Bid for Class Cert. WAL-MART STORES: Zanetich Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit WALT DISNEY: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal WAWA INC: Filing of Exhibit to Class Cert Opposition Sought WEAVE COMMUNICATIONS: McAfee Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Class Settlement Approval WERNER ENTERPRISES: $750K Class Deal in Ellis Suit Has Final Nod WEST CAPITAL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Status Bid WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA-Related Class Suit WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Racial Discrimination Suit WIPRO LIMITED: Loses Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Maclean Suit YOUTUBE LLC: Schneider Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir. YOUTUBE LLC: Schneider Withdraws Copyright Class Suit Before Trial ZENLEADS INC: Bellanca Files Placeholder Bid for Class Status ********* 1226 SECOND AVENUE: Quaglia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- GIUSEPPE QUAGLIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1226 SECOND AVENUE REALTY CORP. d/b/a PRIMOLA, and DJULIANO ZULIANI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04565 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server from about October 7, 2022 through December 29, 2022. 1226 Second Avenue Realty Corp. owns an Italian-cuisine restaurant under the tradename of PRIMOLA based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clara Lam, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: clam@bkllawyers.com 476 K: Parties Seek to Certify Class of Hosts in Koska Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARKO KOSKA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 476 K, LLC, dba CLOAKROOM, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03232-JMC (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective of: "all hosts employed by 476 K, LLC, d/b/a Cloakroom at any time on or after February 26, 2015, through present, approve the proposed notice and consent forms to be sent to such persons via U.S. mail and email and continue the stay until 45 days after the notice is sent." The Parties jointly seek an order from the Court conditionally certifying this action as an opt-in collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and D.C. Code section 32-1308(a)(1)(C), approving notice to putative collective members in the form of Exhibit 1, and continuing to stay the case until forty-five (45) days after the notice is sent. The Plaintiff has brought this on behalf himself and the Defendants' other hourly-paid employees, claiming that they were unlawfully required to share tips with the Defendants and/or their managers and were not given proper notice of the Defendants' tip-pool policies, in violation of section 203(m)(2)(B) of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act (DCMWA). The Complaint alleges that the Defendants' hosts were hourly-paid employees at its adult entertainment venue located at 476 K Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20001, and were subject to the Defendants' unlawful policies keeping hourly-paid employees' tips and paying them a "tipped minimum wage" pursuant to D.C. Code section 32-1003(f) despite failing to comply with the prerequisites set forth in D.C. Code section 32-1003(g). A copy of Parties' motion dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42FWqP0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com - and - Stephen B. Lebau, Esq. LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC 502 Washington Avenue - Suite 720 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (443) 273-1203 Facsimile: (410) 296-8660 E-mail: sl@joblaws.net The Defendants are represented by: Robert Anthony Cocchia, Esq. Jonathan Niles Rosen, Esq. RIMON LAW 3579 4th Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (858) 348-4383 E-mail: robert.cocchia@rimonlaw.com jonathan.rosen@rimonlaw.com ADVANCE MAGAZINE: Agrees to Settle Intern Class Action for $5.85M ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ben James of Outten and Golden reports that Conde Nast Publications agreed to pay $5.85 million to resolve a putative class action brought by two former interns at the New Yorker and W magazine who claimed they were unlawfully denied minimum wage, the plaintiffs told a New York federal court on June 8, 2023. Named plaintiffs Lauren Ballinger and Matthew Lieb filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action deal that would resolve both federal and state wage claims, pointing out that there was an inherent risk in pursuing the case because what legal test should apply to intern wage claims is still being mulled by the Second Circuit. In intern cases against Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. and Hearst Corp., New York federal courts adopted different tests for ascertaining whether an intern qualifies as an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Conde Nast plaintiffs said. Those cases, part of a rash of intern wage cases against big-name employers, are on appeal. Two very different outcomes resulted in these cases in one, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs; in the other, the court denied summary judgment," the interns said in a memorandum supporting their preliminary approval bid. These very different outcomes demonstrate the uncertainty that the parties face. The proposed settlement alleviates this uncertainty." The suit was filed in June 2013, invoking the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. The parties reached an agreement on key terms, including the settlement amount, in March. The class covers an estimated 7,500 people, the agreement said. Ballinger, who interned at W magazine in 2009, claimed she was paid $12 per day no matter how long she worked. She and others said they regularly performed productive work that benefited Conde Nast and saved it money, yet the company not only underpaid them but also provided them no educational experience. Lieb was an intern for the New Yorker during the summers of 2009 and 2010, when he reviewed submissions, answered reader emails, proofread copy and relayed documents between writers, cartoonists and editors. He was paid a few hundred dollars for his work, the lawsuit claims. The proposed settlement, under which Conde Nast will pay up to $5.85 million to cover payments to class members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, service payments and claims administration fees, covers two overlapping groups of class members. The FLSA collective group covers all people who had Conde Nast internships since June 13, 2010, and the New York class covers those with Conde Nast internships in New York state since June 13, 2007. The plaintiffs are represented by Rachel Bien, Juno Turner and Michael Litrownik of Outten & Golden LLP. The case is Ballinger et al v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., case number 1:13-cv-04036, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Anderson Seeks Class Action Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERMAINE ANDERSON, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the ADVANCE 401(K) PLAN, v. ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06826-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order 1. certifying the action as a class action, on behalf of: "All participants and beneficiaries in the Advance 401(k) Plan invested in the BlackRock LifePath Index target date funds at any time on or after August 10, 2016 and continuing to the date of judgement, or such earlier date that the Court determines is appropriate and just, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan invested in the BlackRock TDFs at any time during the Class Period;" 2. appointing the Plaintiff as representative of the proposed class; and 3. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the Class. Advance Publications is a privately-held American media company owned by the families of Donald Newhouse and Samuel Irving Newhouse Jr., the sons of company founder Samuel Irving Newhouse Sr. Wikipedia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43EFxpd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. Anna K. D’Agostino, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com lrubinow@millershah.com jcshah@millershah.com ajberin@millershah.com akdagostino@millershah.com - and - John Crutchlow, Esq. YOUMAN & CAPUTO, LLC 2 Logan Square 100-120 N. 18th Street, Suite 1925 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 302-1999 E-mail: jcrutchlow@youmancaputo.com ALDI INC: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Fruit and Grain Bars --------------------------------------------------------------- Specialty Food Association reports that Aldi is embroiled in a class action lawsuit in California for allegedly misrepresenting its fruit and grain bars by claiming they only contain natural products, reports Newsweek. The lawsuit demands $9,999,000 in damages for customers who bought the product in the last four years. The suit alleges that Aldi, "through its marketing and labeling of the products, misrepresented and deceived consumers regarding the flavoring in the products," and it "did so for the purpose of enriching itself and it in fact enriched itself by doing so." Independent third-party laboratory testing of the retailer's Millville Fruit & Grain cereal bars revealed they contained DL malic acid, a synthetic flavoring, according to the lawsuit. In a filing on May 30 a lawyer for plaintiff Deana Lozano, a health care administrator, argued that the "no artificial flavors" claim must therefore be false. Malic acid is an ingredient that can occur both naturally as well as synthetically, but DL malic acid is a synthetic variety produced by the "catalytic oxidation of benzene" according to the National Library of Medicine. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Illegal Personal Info Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Rosenblatt of Seattle Times reports that two Seattle giants - Amazon and Starbucks - have been accused of collecting customers' personal information without first notifying them, in a lawsuit filed on June 7, 2023 in Seattle. The proposed class-action lawsuit alleges Amazon and Starbucks have violated a New York City law that requires companies to post signage near store entrances if the businesses are collecting customers' biometric data, like fingerprints, handprints or the shape of a person's body. Amazon and Starbucks teamed up to open two contactless checkout coffee shops in the city during the past three years. The stores feature Amazon's Just Walk Out technology, which uses machine learning paired with a network of sensors and cameras to track what customers pick up and charge them when they walk out, skipping the checkout line. [GN] AMERICAN FEDERATION: Johnson Appeals Court Orders to D.C. Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- JOCELYNN JOHNSON, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled John Doe #1, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Federation of Government Employees, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01558-JDB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this class action suit against the Defendants for sexual assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; physical injury; racial and/or religious discrimination; breach of fiduciary duty; sexual harassment; hostile work environment based on sex, race and religion; and intentional tort. According to the complaint, Defendant Jeffrey David Cox, Sr. violated his oath of office and his fiduciary duties at the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) by using union-provided limousine services to go to strip clubs and bars and procure male prostitutes and to sexually assault, sexually harass and racially discriminate against Plaintiff Annette Wells' son, Plaintiff John Doe #1, and Plaintiff John Doe #2, and also to racially discriminate against Plaintiffs Waqas Kalyar, Fahim Javed, and Jocelynn Johnson. The Plaintiffs also filed complaint against other AFGE officials due to breach of their fiduciary duties to the labor organization by failing to report, investigate and take disciplinary action after receiving numerous sexual and other misconduct complaints filed against Defendant Cox; failing to process internal disciplinary charges filed against him by Plaintiff Wells on February 13, 2020, related to his sexual and other misconduct; and failing to file a lawsuit against him to account for and recover all AFGE funds that he improperly used to go to strip clubs and bars, procure male prostitutes and sexually abuse others. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs suffered damages including, but without limitation, deprivation of income and benefits, loss of opportunity, severe emotional distress, personal injuries, pain, suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, and damage to reputation and career. On May 17, 2023, upon consideration of the parties' stipulation of dismissal and Defendant AFGE's motion to withdraw sanctions and to vacate order for sanctions, and the entire record, Judge John D. Bates ruled that Plaintiff Rocky Kabir's fourth amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice; that Defendant AFGE's motion to strike Kabir's fourth amended complaint is denied as moot and AFGE's motion for sanctions against Marlene Morten and Donna Clancy is withdrawn. It was further ordered that the Court's May 4, 2023 Order for sanctions against Morten and Clancy is vacated and any claims that Kabir has against his former counsel Kemi Morten in connection with this matter are also dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned John Doe #1, et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees, et al., Case No. 23-7067, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on May 31, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOCELYNN JOHNSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Marlene D. Morten, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARLENE MORTEN 3825 South Capitol Street, SW Washington, DC 20032 Telephone: (239) 600-8250 Defendants-Appellees AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, et al. are represented by: Elisabeth Mary Oppenheimer, Esq. BREDHOFF & KAISER PLLC 805 15th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 842-2600 - and - Daniel Ray Francis, Esq. DAN FRANCIS LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 575 Lexington, NC 27293 Telephone: (314) 258-0259 ARGO GROUP: Cops/Firemen Retirement Fund Hits SEC Filings --------------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2023, that on October 20, 2022, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging securities fraud violations under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On January 18, 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the Police and Fire Retirement System City of Detroit and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System's joint motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. On March 27, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, which alleges that from June 11, 2018 through August 9, 2022, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the company's reserves and underwriting standards. Defendants anticipate making a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, due on or before May 26, 2023. Lead plaintiffs are expected to serve an opposition to said motion on or before July 13, 2023, after which Defendants anticipate serving a reply on or before August 14, 2023. Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is an insurance company based in Bermuda. AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM: Faces Pry Suit Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ AARON PRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-04541 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2023) is a class action brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law arising from the Defendant's failure to provide timely wages to Plaintiff and all other similar manual workers and unlawful deductions from their wages. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as service and sales representative from approximately March 27, 2023 to April 26, 2023. Auto-Chlor System, LLC is a dishwashing machine, laundry service, and chemical supply provider to the hospitality, healthcare, and lodging industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Denise A. Schulman, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 BACUS FOODS: Seeks to Stay Briefing of Holder Conditional Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Holder, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Bacus Foods Corp.; BFCJJS106, LLC; Brandt Bacus; Jared Bacus; John Doe Corp. 1-10; and John Doe 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-00763-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying briefing on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of FLSA Collective Action. Alternatively, if the Court is not inclined to stay briefing on the Conditional Certification Motion, the Defendants move for a two-week extension of their time to file their response to the Conditional Certification Motion. With the two-week extension, the Defendants' response would be due on June 14, 2023. This is the Defendants' first request for an extension of time to respond to the Conditional Certification Motion. The Plaintiff Michael Holder -- a Nebraska resident—filed this lawsuit seeking to certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act (NWHA), and the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act (NWPCA) on May 3, 2023. Bacus Foods is a franchisee, owner, and operator of Jimmy Johns Gourmet Sandwich shops in multiple states. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42Ft5En at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Laura Pasqualone, Esq. Nicole G. True, Esq. Katie Derrig, Esq. LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP 201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595 Telephone: (602) 262-5311 E-mail: lpasqualone@lewisroca.com NTrue@lewisroca.com kderrig@lewisroca.com BANK OF GREENE COUNTY: Settlement in Broockmann Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BROOCKMANN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE BANK OF GREENE COUNTY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00390-AMN-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an order granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court finds that the Agreement proposed by the Parties likely meets the considerations set forth in the amended Rule 23(e), as well as the factors set forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), and as a result is fair, reasonable, and adequate and likely to be approved at a final approval hearing such that giving notice is justified. 2. The Settlement was negotiated with the assistance of neutral Mediator Hon. Edward Infante (Ret.), and appears to be the result of extensive, arm's length negotiations between the Parties after Class Counsel and BGC's Counsel had investigated the claims, obtained meaningful discovery, sufficiently litigated the claims, and become familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the claims. 3. The Court finds that it will likely certify at the final approval stage the settlement Class, for purposes of the Settlement only, consisting of: -- Those checking account customers of The Bank of Greene County who, from April 26, 2016, to the date of the Court’s preliminary approval order, while residing in the United States, paid an overdraft fee on a transaction that The Bank of Greene County determined was authorized into a positive available balance, and for whom that overdraft fee was not refunded. 4. The Court sets the following schedule of events: Event Calendar Days Before Final Approval Hearing Notice program Complete (including June 26, 2023 Initial Mailed Notice and the Notice Re-Mailing Process) Motion for Final Approval, July 10, 2023 Application for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Costs, and for a Service Award Opt-Out Deadline August 24, 2023 Deadline to Submit Objections August 24, 2023 Deadline to Respond to Objections September 8, 2023 Final Approval Hearing October 11, 2023 Bank of Greene County is a federally chartered savings bank headquartered in Catskill, NY with 17 branches located in the Upstate NY counties of Greene, Columbia, Albany, and Ulster. The bank was initially founded on January 22, 1889, as the Building & Loan Association of Catskill. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N1HG7k at no extra charge.[CC] BERRY CORP: Seeks Evidentiary Hearing on Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS TORRES, ALLIA DEANGELIS, DARRICK INMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BERRY CORPORATION, ARTHUR T. SMITH, CARY BAETZ, GARY A. GROVE, BRENT S. BUCKLEY, KAJ VAZALES, and EUGENE J. VOILAND, Case No. 3:20-cv-03464-S (N.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order setting an evidentiary hearing on Lead the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. Berry Corp. is a company primarily engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in California, the Uintah Basin, and the Piceance Basin. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 31, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/464Ba8e at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Douglas W. Greene C. Shawn Cleveland Zachary R. Taylor Tamara D. Baggett Genevieve G. York-Erwin BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 2850 North Harwood Street, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-1200 Facsimile: (214) 210-1201 E-mail: scleveland@bakerlaw.com tbaggett@bakerlaw.com dgreene@bakerlaw.com ztaylor@bakerlaw.com gyorkerwin@bakerlaw.com BGC PARTNERS: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in Delaware Court ------------------------------------------------------------- BGC Partners, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2023, that on March 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed against Cantor, BGC Holdings, and Newmark Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00265). The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited partners of the defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated limited partners, alleges a claim for breach of contract against all defendants on the basis that the defendants failed to make payments due under the relevant partnership agreements. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions upon which the defendants relied to deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware law. The plaintiffs allege a second claim against Cantor and BGC Holdings for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act on the basis that the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade. In that regard, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions of the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements, as well as restrictive covenants included in partner separation agreements, cause anticompetitive effects in the labor market, insulate Cantor and BGC Holdings from competition, and limit innovation. BGC Partners, Inc. is a leading global financial brokerage and technology company based in New York. BIG LOTS: Court Junks Cornejo Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATY CORNEJO, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BIG LOTS STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01247-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to deny class certification. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff cannot satisfy these two requirements because she did not sign an arbitration agreement whereas 97.41% of the putative class members did. On April 20, 2022, Ms. Cornejo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, initiated the present wage-and-hour class action in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, against her former employer Big Lots Stores. The Defendant subsequently removed the action to this Court on July 14, 2022, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Plaintiff does not dispute any of the above, but instead argues that the Motion should be denied "as to putative class members who did not sign arbitration agreements or who signed after April 20, 2022." To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to represent those who signed arbitration agreements after April 20, 2022, this argument fails for the same reasons discussed above. The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendant in an hourly, non-exempt position. As a condition of employment, the Defendant "requires that all newly hired associates agree to mutual arbitration." Big Lots is an American furniture and home decor retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43Gs9Rm at no extra charge.[CC] BOOT BARN HOLDINGS: CA Court OKs Settlement in Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 1, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2023, that on February 27, 2020, an employee filed a class action lawsuit against the company, which includes claims for penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act, in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2019-00272000-CU-OE-GDS, alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal periods and rest breaks, and an alleged violation of the suitable seating requirement as per California Labor Law among other things. Subsequent to April 1, 2023, the company received a court order granting approval of the settlement. Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. is a lifestyle retail chain based in California. BP EXPLORATION: Spencer Claims in B3 Case Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RITA SPENCER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION "R" (5), Civil Action No. 17-4253 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; b. grants the BP Parties' motion for summary judgment; and c. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from her work as an onshore and offshore cleanup worker. She represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: blistering, welts, flaking, inflammation, itching, dermatitis, eye irritation, wheezing, shortness of breath, upper respiratory infection, sinus pain, nasal congestion, nosebleed, throat irritation, epistaxis, sinusitis, diarrhea, nausea, abdominal pain, IBS, GERD, dizziness, headache, hypertension, heart palpitations, anxiety, and anemia. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. Her case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants because of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in her complaint, she offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his March 14, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry her burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. At issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation evidence. Judge Vance finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. Given Dr. Cook's failure to determine the relevant harmful level of exposure to chemicals to which the Plaintiff was exposed for her specific conditions, he lacks sufficient facts to provide a reliable opinion on general causation. Judge Vance also finds that Dr. Cook's report is unhelpful to the factfinder for many of the same reasons. Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful because of his inability to link any specific chemical that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, at the level at which she was exposed, to the health conditions that she purportedly experiences. In sum, the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet her burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. The Plaintiff asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived plaintiff of data which would quantitatively establish her exposure. According to Judge Vance, the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies. First, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Dr. Cook's failure to link any specific chemicals to the conditions allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff prevents the admission of Cook's opinion. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. In her opposition to the Defendants' motion, the Plaintiff notes that other sections of the Court have denied summary judgment in cases in which B3 plaintiffs have brought claims premised on transient or temporary symptoms. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of her claims against the Defendants, her claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckv4vw8 from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Treme's Claims in B3 Case Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOSH TREME v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (5), Civil Action No. 17-4269 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants the BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s, motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; b. grants the BP parties' motion for summary judgment; and c. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an offshore cleanup worker. He represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: bronchitis, abdominal pain, diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, gastritis, stomach pain, cellulitis, skin ulcers, abscesses, rash, boils, anemia, hypokalemia, liver abscess, vision loss, light sensitivity, eye burning, and blurred vision. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants because of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his March 14, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiff has the burden of proving that the legal cause of his claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. At issue here is whether he has produced admissible general causation evidence. Judge Vance finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. Given Dr. Cook's failure to determine the relevant harmful level of exposure to chemicals to which the Plaintiff was exposed for his specific conditions, he lacks sufficient facts to provide a reliable opinion on general causation. Judge Vance also finds that Dr. Cook's report is unhelpful to the factfinder for many of the same reasons. Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful because of his inability to link any specific chemical that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, at the level at which he was exposed, to the health conditions that he purportedly experiences. In sum, the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in the case, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. The Plaintiff asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived him of data which would quantitatively establish his exposure. The Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies, Judge Vance holds. First, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Dr. Cook's failure to link any specific chemicals to the conditions allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff prevents the admission of Cook's opinion. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. In his opposition to the Defendants' motion, the Plaintiff notes that other sections of the Court have denied summary judgment in cases in which B3 plaintiffs have brought claims premised on transient or temporary symptoms. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against defendants, his claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/495jxw8u from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Yarbrough's B3 Case Claims Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANIEL YARBROUGH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (5), Civil Action No. 17-4293 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: a. grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; b. grants the BP parties' motion for summary judgment; and c. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an onshore cleanup worker. He represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: chronic rhinitis, chronic sinusitis, nasal congestion, pneumonia, pulmonary emphysema, dyspnea, rash, dermatitis, eye irritation, vision loss, chest pain, hypertension, dizziness, headaches, GERD, anxiety, insomnia, depression, PTSD, memory loss, and myalgia. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants because of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his March 14, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work. The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. They also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions, contending that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion. At issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation evidence. Judge Vance finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. Given Dr. Cook's failure to determine the relevant harmful level of exposure to chemicals to which the Plaintiff was exposed for the Plaintiff's specific conditions, he lacks sufficient facts to provide a reliable opinion on general causation. Judge Vance also finds that Dr. Cook's report is unhelpful to the factfinder for many of the same reasons. Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful because of his inability to link any specific chemical that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, at the level at which he was exposed, to the health conditions that he purportedly experiences. In sum, the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in the case, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. The Plaintiff asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived him of data which would quantitatively establish his exposure. The Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies, according to Judge Vance. First, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Dr. Cook's failure to link any specific chemicals to the conditions allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff prevents the admission of Cook's opinion. Judge Vance thus denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. In his opposition to the Defendants' motion, the Plaintiff notes that other sections of the Court have denied summary judgment in cases in which B3 plaintiffs have brought claims premised on transient or temporary symptoms. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yp6hueuj from Leagle.com. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Fulton Seeks Conditional Status of Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TABITHA FULTON, Individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P. and CENTER ONE, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00823-MRH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1) conditionally certifying the case as a collective action; and 2) providing for the mailing of the Proposed Notice and Consent Form to all potential plaintiffs, at the Defendants' cost. Capital Management is a legitimate, New York-based debt collection agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PeoVQD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Manes, Esq. MANES & NARAHARI, LLC One Oxford Centre 301 Grant St, Suite 270 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 626-5570 E-mail: dm@manesnarahari.com CARE AT HOME: Nqadolo Files Bid for Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANDE NQADOLO and PAMELA MANGALI individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CARE AT HOME, LLC, SUZANNE KARP and DANIEL KARP, Case No. 3:22-cv-00612-KAD (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). The Plaintiffs also move the Court to designate them as Class Representatives; and to designate their counsel, Nitor V. Egbarin and the Law Office of Nitor V. Egbarin, LLC, as class counsel. The Plaintiffs propose the following definition of the class they seek to represent: "all "live-in" Home Care Assistants, a/k/a Caregivers ("HCAs) the Defendants employed in Connecticut during the period of February 10, 2020, until the date of final judgment in this matter who worked for the Defendants." Care At Home supports and provides care for individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 31, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JbbBbY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3007 Telephone: (860) 249-7180 Facsimile: (860) 408-1471 E-mail: NEgbarin@aol.com CAREDX INC: Plumbers' Fund Files Securities Suit in CA Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Caredx, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2023, that on May 23, 2022, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension Fund filed a federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, Reginald Seeto, its President, Chief Executive Officer and member of the Company's Board of Directors, Ankur Dhingra, its former Chief Financial Officer, Marcel Konrad, its former interim Chief Financial Officer and former Senior Vice President of Finance & Accounting, and Peter Maag, its former President, former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of the Board and current member of the Company's Board of Directors. The action alleges that the company and the individual defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action also alleges that the individual defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the company. CareDx, Inc. is a precision medicine company based in California. CARGILL INCORPORATED: Tavares Must Reply to Opposition by July 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL TAVARES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v. CARGILL INCORPORATED, an unknown business entity; CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:18-cv-00792-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order modifying the prior briefing schedule and setting the following dates and deadlines: 1. The Defendants' Opposition to the June 6, 2023 Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before: 2. The Plaintiff's Reply shall be filed July 10, 2023 on or before: 3. The hearing date remains as set: August 2, 2023 Cargill, Incorporated, is a privately held American global food corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43SokIq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody R. Kennedy, Esq. Marissa Mayhood, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com mmayhood@marlinsaltzman.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason E. Barsanti, Esq. Brett Greving, Esq. COZEN O’CONNOR 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 234-1700 Facsimile: (619) 234-7831 E-mail: jbarsanti@cozen.com bgreving@cozen.com CHICAGO, IL: Class Certification in Race Discrimination Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley of Class Action Defense report that in Edmond, et al. v. City of Chicago, No. 17-CV-4858 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2023), Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion for class certification filed by a group of current and former employees alleging workplace race discrimination in violation of state and federal law. The ruling highlights the viability of defense positions relative to Plaintiffs' failure to meet the Rule 23 commonality requirement, which was instrumental to defeating their bid for class certification. Case Background Nine African-American workers currently or previously employed by the Chicago Department of Water brought a putative class action against the City of Chicago and several individuals employed by it in 2017, alleging race discrimination and a hostile work environment on behalf of a group of employees. Plaintiffs alleged the existence of an ongoing and pervasive "culture of racism" fostered by organizational leadership across five bureaus and various sub-bureaus, treatment plants, and construction sites. The lawsuit was brought after the City's Inspector General uncovered emails containing racist exchanges between Department commissioners and deputies, which resulted in resignations of two executives. Plaintiffs alleged that the hostile work environment included racially offensive language, threatening gestures, and disparate treatment of Black employees in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983 and Illinois law, and filed a motion to certify a class that included all Black workers employed by the Water Department since 2011 and three sub-classes for individuals who had been eligible for overtime, those with disciplinary infractions, and those who had been denied promotions. In 2018, the Court granted Defendants' partial motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs then brought a motion to amend the complaint in order to drop the individuals from the suit, which was granted without prejudice. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court's Decision The City argued that because Plaintiffs were unable to establish a shared work environment in their hostile work environment claim due to the Department's dispersed workforce, Plaintiffs failed to identify a common contention whose resolution would resolve class claims, as required under Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality element. The Court agreed with this position. It opined that there was no "evidence of common areas shared by all Department employees or instances of harassment broadcast across the entire Department." The Court found that the experience of putative class members varied across the Department, with individual claims of discrimination ranging from verbal to visual conduct, while others alleged bias in duty assignments or disciplinary actions. Plaintiffs additionally contended that a pervasive culture of discrimination permeated the Water Department. They cited statements made by members of the city administration and the Inspector General's investigation, and posited that this was proof of a "de facto policy of racism" across the workplaces. The Court was not convinced that this had a uniform impact on all the named Plaintiffs and putative class members to satisfy the commonality question, and it denied the motion for class certification based on Plaintiffs' failure to meet this threshold under Rule 23(a). Likewise, Judge Kennelly rejected Plaintiffs' arguments for certification of each sub-class based on a pervasively racist culture. The Court concluded that disciplinary, overtime, and promotion decisions were made by individual supervisors based on their personal discretion and varied across the Department, and that Plaintiffs failed to show evidence that the same decision-makers were responsible for such actions. The Court was not convinced by Plaintiffs' expert witness' use of statistical data to show a disparate impact, noting that similar evidence had not been sufficient to demonstrate commonality for purposes of class certification in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). Implications For Employers The Edmond ruling underscores the importance of maintaining and utilizing a well-organized workplace reporting structure and managerial discretion in employment matters in anticipating arguing the absence of Rule 23's commonality requirement, as seen in the Wal-Mart decision. In dismissing all of Plaintiffs' arguments after finding an absence of a work environment common to all putative class members and no top-down decision-making policy regarding wages and promotions, the Court signals its steady reliance on the well-established standards for these types of claims, providing a valuable reaffirmation to employers' reliable defense strategies. [GN] CHIFLEZ CORP: Sarmiento Sues Over General Laborers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- FIDEL SARMIENTO, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. CHIFLEZ CORP and JUAN CARLOS SEGARRA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04010 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2023) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations for claims relating to Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours wages, inaccurate wage statements, and unfurnished notice at time of hiring. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately 2014 until April 16, 2023, where he worked as a general laborer. Chiflez Corp. is a Latin American restaurant based in Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 CIGNA HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to Strike Defendants' Objection ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ, et al., v. Cigna Health And Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to strike the Defendants' objection or, in the alternative, granting their leave to file the response to the Defendants' objection. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), a court may strike any impertinent or immaterial matter. The Defendants' Objection is in direct violation of this Court's local rules and raises immaterial issues. Accordingly, the Court should strike their Objection. Cigna Health offers life and health insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qwJcXh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew M. Lavin, Esq. Aaron R. Modiano, Esq. ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 350S Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 677-4030 Facsimile: (202) 677-4031 E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com aaron.modiano@agg.com - and - David M. Lilienstein, Esq. Katie J. Spielman, Esq. DL LAW GROUP 345 Franklin St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 678-5050 Facsimile: (415) 358-8484 E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com katie@dllawgroup.com CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Myers Bid to Extend Deadlines Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MYERS, et al., v. CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00142-KAC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Katherine A. Crytzer entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' "Status Report and Motions to Extend Deadlines to File Motion for Class Certification and to Respond to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment." -- Specifically, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline to file any motion for class certification and grants in part the Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline to respond to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. -- The Plaintiffs must respond to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment within 21 days of entry of this Order. -- Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in dismissal of Named Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendant with prejudice under Rule 41(b). Accordingly, the Court denies their request to extend a deadline to perform an action that they cannot take under the law. The Plaintiffs have, however, established good cause to extend the deadline to respond to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CmEm1p at no extra charge.[CC] CORPORATE SOLUTIONS: Court Directs Filing of Class Discovery Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Corporate Solutions America Insurance Corporation v. B & N Trucking Inc. et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04040-SLD-JEH, (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X3vG9Q at no extra charge.[CC] COX INDUSTRIES: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frederick M. Crout, Joseph Malizia, Joseph C. Taber, Bruce Bennett, and Lakeside Realty, Inc., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Cox Industries, Inc. n/k/a Koppers Utility and Industrial Products, Inc., Arch Treatment Technologies, Inc., and Culpeper of Orangeburg LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02417-JFA (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follow: 1. Amendment of Pleadings: Any motions to July 10, 2023 join other parties and to amend the pleadings shall be filed by: 2. All discovery related to class Oct. 27, 2023 certification shall be completed by: 3. The Plaintiffs shall file all Nov. 17, 2023 Motions related to class certification no later than: 4. All discovery shall be completed Aug. 23, 2024 By: 5. The parties shall file dispositive Sept. 13, 2024 motions by: A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P8KqCy at no extra charge.[CC] CREDIT SUISSE: Gomez Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADELINA GOMEZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Adelina Gomez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Suisse AG, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00115, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff brought this class action suit against the Defendant for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by deciding to delist and suspend the issuance of its exchange traded note ("ETN") product, DGAZ. On July 11, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge John P. Cronan on Mar. 31, 2023. The Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint by May 1, 2023. However, the Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by that date. Consequently, the Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment dismissing Count I with prejudice and to close this case. The appellate case is captioned Gomez v. Credit Suisse AG, Case No. 23-862, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 1, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ADELINA GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel Centner, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE 1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 605-2234 Defendant-Appellee CREDIT SUISSE AG is represented by: David G. Januszewski, Esq. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 32 Old Slip New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 701-3352 CUTTING EDGE: Pereira Sues Over Landscapers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Felix Pereira, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Cutting Edge Landscaping & Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01014 (M.D. Fla., May 31, 2023) is an action to recover money damages for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Pereira was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempted, full-time landscaper from approximately May 1, 2021, to May 8, 2023, or 105 weeks. Cutting Edge Landscaping & Services LLC is a full-service contractor providing lawn, landscaping, and related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DINGDONG (CAYMAN): McCormack's Bid to Reopen Lead Appointment Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Plaintiff's motion to reopen the lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointment process in the lawsuit titled RYAN McCORMACK, Plaintiff v. DINGDONG (CAYMAN) LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-7273 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Ryan McCormack brings this securities fraud action against Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd. and several of its officers and underwriters, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Following a Court Opinion & Order filed on Nov. 30, 2022, (the "Opinion"), denying the Plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the Plaintiff filed a letter motion on Dec. 19, 2022, requesting that Judge Broderick reopen the lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointment process. The parties submitted a joint letter on Dec. 20, 2022, requesting that Judge Broderick grant a continuance of the deadline for parties to file a proposed briefing schedule for an amended complaint and subsequent response. Judge Broderick ordered that the deadline to propose a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint is adjourned sine die pending decision on reopening the lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointment process. On Jan. 4, 2023, Judge Broderick issued an order directing the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's letter motion by Jan. 18, 2023. On Jan. 18, 2023, the Defendants filed their opposition to the Plaintiff's letter motion. The Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition on Jan. 25. Judge Broderick finds that the case presents unique circumstances for which the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") does not provide specific guidance. The Court has determined that McCormack is not suitable to be appointed as lead plaintiff of the putative class, and there are no other applications or movants to be lead plaintiff. Despite multiple law firms seeking lead plaintiffs, only one putative lead plaintiff, McCormack, filed a motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. At least four other law firms, including Khan Swick & Foti, LLC, the Goss Law Firm, Lieff Cabreser Heimann & Bernstein, LLC, and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, issued press releases seeking lead plaintiffs in this matter without success. On Oct. 24, 2022, the deadline to file a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel passed. On Oct. 26, 2022, McCormack filed a motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approval of his selection of lead counsel, Scott+Scott LLP. McCormack was the only plaintiff that filed a motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. He claimed that he bought and held 40 shares of Dingdong stock during the class period, leading to a total of $504.40 in losses. To date, Judge Broderick says there has been significant effort expended to identify a lead plaintiff with an alleged adequate amount of loss, who is willing to vigorously pursue the action on behalf of a class. No one, other than McCormack, came forward. Reopening the lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointment process at the request of the law firm Scott+Scott is contrary to the principal goal of the PSLRA: that securities actions should be driven by investors, and not class action counsel, Judge Broderick opines, citing Bosch v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, No. 22-CV-2477 (ENV), 2022 WL 4285377, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2022). The Plaintiff also argues that in light of Judge Broderick's reasoning that Scott+Scott's initial notice was deficient that Judge Broderick should reopen the lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointment process and allow for a new notice to be republished. However, as noted, during the initial search for a lead plaintiff, several other law firms also filed notices and news alerts on various reputable and far-reaching media outlets, such as Business Wire, that advised members of the purported class of the pendency of the action, claims asserted, and the purported class period. PR Newswire has been accepted as a satisfactory publication to publish notices under the PSLRA, Judge Broderick points out. Unlike the cases that permitted republication of a notice for lead plaintiff, Judge Broderick says there have been no amendments to the complaint that have substantially altered the claims or class members. Further, there were notices by various law firms that were widely broadcast with the required information that informed individuals, who could have been potential lead plaintiffs of their opportunity to move for lead plaintiff appointment in this case. Only one potential lead plaintiff, McCormack, emerged after the statutorily required 60-day period. In the absence of any guidance in the PSLRA or the Second Circuit, Judge Broderick finds that since the scope and claims in the complaint have not changed, and there was ample notice given to potential lead plaintiffs that reopening the lead plaintiff selection process is unwarranted. Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the Court should reopen the lead plaintiff selection process because class members may be inhibited from pursuing claims as early as March 2023 due to Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933, which states that Section 11 claims must be brought within one year after discovery of the alleged misstatement or omission. As an initial matter, Judge Broderick notes that McCormack may still pursue his claims on an individual basis and vindicate any losses he attributes to Dingdong's fraudulent or illegal behavior. However, as explained, the lead plaintiff selection process has been procedurally satisfied, and Judge Broderick has an obligation to curb frivolous, lawyer-driven litigation, while preserving investors' ability to recover on meritorious claims. At this point in the litigation, multiple firms published notice and the statutory 60-day time period has elapsed from publication of the notice to seek a lead plaintiff candidate and move for their appointment as lead plaintiff in this action. Reopening the lead plaintiff selection process at this point would be against the spirit of the PSLRA and further delay resolution of this matter, Judge Broderick explains. In addition, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to reopen the process, such as amendment of the complaint or claims, or made a showing that the previous lead-plaintiff appointment process was fatally flawed. For the reasons set forth, Judge Broderick denies McCormack's motion to reopen the lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointment process. Within 21 days, parties will submit a proposed schedule for the filing of any amended complaint and subsequent responses. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all open gavels. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated June 1, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/nhh6atyr from Leagle.com. Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- Scott + Scott, L.L.P., New York City, Counsel for the Plaintiff. Matthew Osborn Solum -- msolum@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York City, Counsel for Defendant Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd. Joanna Andrea Diakos -- joanna.diakoskordalis@klgates.com -- Priya Chadha, K&L Gates LLP, in New York City, Counsel for Defendants Colleen A. De Vries and Cogency Global Inc. DISTROKID: Faces Class Suit Over Handling Copyright Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Tencer of Music Business Worldwide reports that a US indie music label is seeking to launch a class-action lawsuit against music distributor DistroKid. The claim argues that DistroKid's policies make it impossible for indie labels and artists to defend themselves against allegations of copyright infringement that result in their music being taken down from platforms. In a complaint filed on June 7, 2023 with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, indie label Doeman Music Group Media argued DistroKid breached its fiduciary duty to the label by failing to provide information that would help the label defend against a copyright infringement claim. Along with DistroKid, it named indie hip-hop artist Raquella George (aka Rocky Snyda) as a defendant. The complaint seeks class-action status for the lawsuit. "On information and belief, there are hundreds -- if not thousands -- of DistroKid account-holders who have had non-infringing uses of expression taken down because of wrongful takedown notices sent to platforms," the complaint states. The complaint, which you can read in full here, doesn't argue that DistroKid is behind the wrongful takedowns, rather that the company's policies prevent the indie artists and labels it serves from mounting a defense against third-party accusations. DistroKid is one of a number of music distributors who act as intermediaries between indie artists and labels, and digital streaming providers (DSPs) such as Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal. Typically, DSPs don't allow individuals to upload content to their servers; they have to go through a recognized music distributor. According to the complaint, in 2020, hip-hop artist Damien Wilson (aka Frosty the Doeman) hired Raquella "Rocky Snyda" George to add three seconds of vocals to a song he was recording called Scary Movie. Wilson paid George for the performance, and included her name in the credits of the song. Frosty the Doeman is a West Virginia-based indie hip-hop artist with 86,000 followers on Instagram. Rocky Snyda is a New York-based hip-hop artist with 10,000 followers on Instagram. Her most popular track on Spotify has been streamed some 650,000 times. After Scary Movie was released, Wilson and George had a "personal falling out" that, according to the complaint, was the result of false information about Wilson that reached George by way of a mutual contact. George severed her relationship with Wilson and requested that her name be removed from Scary Movie. The complaint claims that George threatened to file a takedown notice for the track if Wilson didn't comply with her request. Wilson "refused to alter his work to accommodate her request," the complaint states, and informed George that she didn't hold any copyright claims on the track. In January of 2021, DistroKid notified Wilson that Scary Movie, along with the entire EP it was on, had been removed from streaming platforms. The lawsuit alleges that George "falsely represented that she was the copyright holder of the song Scary Movie," and that George used the US's notice-and-takedown system "as a weapon to hold Doeman's music hostage to her preferences about how Doeman exercise[s] its copyrights." The lawsuit alleges that, as a matter of policy, DistroKid would not tell Wilson's label, Doeman Music Group, which platforms George's takedown requests had been sent to, and directed the label to resolve the issue directly with George. It also claims that DistroKid continued to keep that information from Doeman even after being told that George had broken off contact with Wilson and his label. "DistroKid's internal policy regarding takedowns against [indie artists and labels] creates an environment where an [indie artist's or label's] music can be taken down, but the [artist or label] is not given any information or tools, other than the take-down party's contact info, to have the music put back online, especially where it's a misuse of [the notice-and-takedown law] such that the take-down party will not resolve the issue in good faith," the complaint states. Under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), platforms are required to remove content, such as music, when they receive a formal takedown notice from a rightsholder claiming the content infringes on copyright. Removing the content gives the platform "safe harbor" against being sued for copyright infringement. The law also allows the entity whose content has been targeted for takedown to file a rebuttal, within 14 days of the takedown notice. The law says the content can stay up on the platform if the rebuttal shows the accused party plans to resolve the issue in court. The complaint argues this system works well for the major labels and their artists, because major labels will defend their artists and will ensure that the artists' music stays online. "If a takedown party sends Spotify a takedown request for Taylor Swift's music, her record label would use its expertise and resources to take immediate and necessary corrective action to avoid having the music removed from Spotify. Her major label would send a counter-notice as fast as it could. By doing so, the music does not get taken down -- and her fans can continue to listen to her music and her royalties continue to accrue," the complaint stated. But the same is not true for indie artists and labels, whose relationship with platforms is controlled by distributors such as DistroKid, the complaint alleged. "A music distributor may not have a financial incentive aligned with an [indie artist's] music staying posted online. A music distributor like DistroKid collects money upfront and annually… Thus, after the music has been posted, there is little financial incentive for a music distributor like DistroKid to take extra measures to ensure that music stays up," the complaint stated. Additionally, "even if a music distributor requires a percentage of royalties, such payments for many [indie artists and labels] can be incredibly small. So keeping the music posted online does not necessarily benefit a music distributor because streams can be so low as to not provide financial value," the complaint stated. Wilson and his indie label, Doeman, are being represented by attorney Megan Keenan of the Information Dignity Alliance, an Oregon-based non-profit law firm that describes itself as focusing on "education and advocacy relating to data usage, intellectual property, and ethical information practices" and that "advocates for uses [of data and IP] that benefit the public interest." DistroKid is one of the most prominent independent distributors in the music industry. It was valued at USD $1.3 billion in 2021, following an investment from Insight Partners. As of that year, it was distributing more than 1 million tracks per month, which the company said amounted to “30-40% of all new music in the world." DistroKid has since launched DistroVid, a video distribution network; penned a global distribution deal with TikTok; and penned a deal that enables its artists to create and customize profiles on Jaxsta, which calls itself "the world's biggest database of official music credits." [GN] DON HERRINGTON: Class Cert Oral Arguments Set for June 22 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Helen Roe, et al., v. Don Herrington, Case No. 4:20-cv-00484-JAS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge James A. Soto entered an order granting the parties' stipulation to reset the oral argument date: -- Oral arguments on the Plaintiffs motion June 22, 2023 for class certification is rescheduled to Thursday: A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N9Osbg at no extra charge.[CC] DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Benson Class Counsel Given $121.5MM in Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Class Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Incentive Awards in the lawsuit captioned ADRIENNE BENSON and MARY SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, and IGT, a Nevada corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-0525-RSL (W.D. Wash.). The Court confirms its appointment of Jay Edelson, Rafey S. Balabanian, Todd Logan, Alexander G. Tievsky, Brandt Silver-Korn, and Amy Hausmann of Edelson PC as Class Counsel. Class Counsel has requested the Court calculate their award using the percentage-of-the-fund method. Class Counsel requests the Court award $121,485,000 in attorney's fees, reflecting approximately 29.3% of the $415 million Settlement Fund. Class Counsel represents that the Settlement Administration Expenses are anticipated not exceed $3 million from the common fund. Therefore, the requested fee award, together with the Settlement Administration Expenses and incentive awards, does not exceed 30% of the common fund. Nothing in this order will prevent the Settlement Administrator from requesting further reimbursement, drawn exclusively from the interest accrued to the common fund, in the event of an unforeseen circumstance. Judge Lasnik finds that these requested attorney's fees, which reflect an upward departure from the 25% "benchmark" fee award in common fund cases, are fair and reasonable, citing Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). After consideration of all relevant factors, the Court finds that an upward departure from the 25% benchmark is justified by the exceptional result in this extraordinarily risky, novel, and hard-fought litigation. Class Counsel performed exceptional work and achieved an unparalleled result for the Class. Judge Lasnik points out that the $415 million settlement amount is in the top 1-2% of all common fund class action settlements and reflects a sizeable portion of the damages at issue. Class Members stand to recover substantial portions of their Lifetime Spending Amount on the Defendants' Applications. Class Counsel further achieved exceptional non-monetary benefits for the Class, Judge Lasnik notes. Among other things, Defendant DoubleDown has agreed to meaningful prospective relief for the Class, including by (a) placing resources related to video game behavior disorders within its applications; (b) publishing on its website a "voluntary self-exclusion policy;" and (c) enabling continued play without the requirement of continued payment. Judge Lasnik points out that this litigation was extremely risky for Class Counsel. Class Counsel worked entirely on contingency, prosecuted a line of several class actions against well-funded corporations, and pursued an entirely novel legal theory: that the Defendants' internet-based "social casinos" violated Washington's "Return of Money Lost at Gambling" statute (RCW 4.24.070). On top of this, Class Counsel defended the Class's interests before the Washington State Gambling Commission and the Washington State Legislature. Class Counsel also experienced significant burdens while litigating this case, Judge Lasnik says. Relevant burdens include representation on a contingency basis, especially where litigation spans many years and entails significant expense and where the intensity or difficulty of the litigation prevents counsel from pursuing different or additional work, resulting in a decline in firm income. In addition to all the burdens associated with Class Counsel's broader campaign against the social casino industry--which undoubtedly redounded to the benefit of this Settlement Class--Class Counsel vigorously litigated this case for over four years, progressing farther in litigation than any other among Class Counsel's social casino cases, and advancing significant time and resources, and forgoing other work, in order to prevail here. The market also supports Class Counsel's fee request, Judge Lasnik finds. Class Counsel's requested fee award falls within the usual, 20-30% range recognized by Washington and Ninth Circuit courts. While these figures are higher than the Ninth Circuit benchmark (25%), and the mean percentage awarded in the Western District of Washington (27%), Judge Lasnik holds that Class Counsel's requested fee award is consistent with fee percentages courts across the circuits have approved in dozens of other mega-fund cases. The size of the fund does not warrant a fee reduction because all other factors weigh strongly in favor of the reasonableness of a 29.3% fee award, Judge Lasnik opines. Furthermore, the size of the settlement fund is the result of Class Counsel's exceptional efforts, not merely the size of the class. Judge Lasnik points out that Class Counsel's requested fee award is well-earned and would not constitute an unjustified windfall. The Court is not required to conduct a lodestar cross-check, Farrell v. Bank of Am. Corp., N.A., 827 F. App'x 628, 631 (9th Cir. 2020), and declines to do so here. Given the unique circumstances presented by this litigation, the Court concludes that a lodestar cross-check would not be a valuable tool to help assess the reasonableness of Class Counsel's fee request. The Court grants Class Counsel's request for an attorney's fee award of $121,485,000, reflecting approximately 29.3% of the $415,000,000 Settlement Fund. Class Counsel represent that they have incurred significant costs and expenses in connection with prosecuting this action, but have decided to not seek reimbursement of those separately from their 29.3% fee request. Consequently, the Court does not award Class Counsel any amount for costs and expenses. Class Counsel requests incentive awards of $7,500 each for Adrienne Benson and Mary Simonson. Judge Lasnik finds that the requested incentive awards are fair and reasonable. Both Benson and Simonson have made substantial contributions to the Class, including stepping forward to serve as class representatives and named Plaintiffs, staying in regular communication with Class Counsel, timely responding to requests for information, sitting for depositions, and closely reviewing the Settlement Agreement before approving it. Both also made substantial personal sacrifices for the benefit of the Class, including the fact that anyone, who Googles their names, now sees pages of websites talking about their involving in these lawsuits. Judge Lasnik holds that $7,500 incentive awards are reasonable for their services. Class Counsel have represented that the Settlement Administrator anticipates the costs of notice and administration not to exceed $3 million. The Court finds that this amount, reflecting approximately 0.7% of the Settlement Fund, is fair and reasonable. The Court consequently approves of the Settlement Administrator recovering up to $3 million for notice and administration related fees and costs. Nothing in this order will prevent the Settlement Administrator from requesting further reimbursement, drawn exclusively from the interest accrued to the common fund, in the event of an unforeseen circumstance. Based on these findings and analysis, the Court: (i) approves an award of $121,485,000 in attorney's fees to Class Counsel, reflecting approximately 29.3% of the Settlement Fund; (ii) approves incentive awards of $7,500 each to the Class Representatives; and (iii) approves up to $3 million in notice and administration costs to be recovered by the Settlement Administrator. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 1, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/45mmmswk from Leagle.com. DRIVER PROVIDER: Seeks Decertification of Class in Salazar Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelli Salazar, Wayne Carpenter, Rodney Lopez, and Gregory Hanna, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, v. Driver Provider Phoenix, LLC; Driver Provider Leasing, LLC; Innovative Transportation of Sedona, LLC; Innovative Transportation Solutions of Tucson, LLC; Innovative Transportation Solutions, Inc. (Arizona); Innovative Transportation Solutions, Inc. (Utah); Innovative Transportation Solutions, LLC; Driver Provider Management LLC; Jason Kaplan; Kendra Kaplan; Stephen Kaplan and Barbara Kaplan, husband and wife; Barry Gross and Donna Gross, husband and wife; and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order decertifying the Rule 23 Class. The Defendants move the court for decertification of the Rule 23 class action certified by the Court on January 30, 2023. The key issue relating to the Rule 23 class is whether Drivers were paid minimum wage under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on December 6, 2019, claiming that they, as well as other putative class members, were misclassified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and were not paid minimum wage for all weeks worked. Driver Provider operates chauffeur services in Phoenix, Arizona; Tucson, Arizona; Sedona, Arizona; Jackson Hole, Wyoming; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Park City, Utah. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N7KWOh at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Tracy A. Miller, Esq. Douglas (Trey) Lynn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 778-3700 Facsimile: (602) 778-3750 E-mail: tracy.miller@ogletree.com trey.lynn@ogletree.com EMPIRE DISTRIBUTION: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Distribution, Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Empire Distribution, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04665 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. EMPIRE Distribution, Records and Publishing Inc. -- http://www.empi.re/-- is an American distribution company and record label founded in 2010 by Ghazi Shami with offices in New York City, London, Nashville, and Atlanta.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Files Opposition to Torres Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES, D.O., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02056-CCC (M.D. Pa.), Equifax requests that the Court enter an order permitting it to submit a corrected, non-public Brief and Exhibits in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The case involves claims that Equifax's OFAC Alert product violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by transmitting inaccurate information about the Plaintiff Dr. Anthony Torres and members of a putative class. The Plaintiff has moved for class certification. On April 11, 2023, Equifax filed its papers opposing the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, including public and non-public versions of its Brief and Exhibits. Under the current scheduling order, the Plaintiff's Reply is due on May 26, 2023, and Affirmative Expert Reports must also be exchanged on May 26, 2023. Equifax Information LLC provides data solutions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PcXXJn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, 25th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Nicholas Linker, Esq. Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam M. Shienvold, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 237-6029 Facsimile: (717) 237-6019 E-mail: ashienvold@eckertseamans.com - and - John C. Toro, Esq. Zachary A. McEntrye, Esq. Peter M. Starr, Esq. Paige L. Burroughs, Esq. Thomas Paris, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com jtoro@kslaw.com pstarr@kslaw.com pburroughs@kslaw.com tparis@kslaw.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Settlement in Meeks Suit Has Prelim. OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued an order preliminarily approving settlement and directing notice to class in the lawsuit entitled ELETTRA MEEKS, JOSEPH DELACRUZ, STEPHANIE LAGUNA, AMBER LEONARD, and BECKY WITT, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; MIDWEST RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LLC; and CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03266-VC (N.D. Cal.). The matter comes before the Court on the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement has been filed with the Court, and the definitions and terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement are incorporated here by reference. The Court has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. As explained in Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 193 F.Supp.3d 1030, 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2016), the Court's review of the Settlement at preliminary approval is not cursory, it is as rigorous as will be conducted at the final approval stage. The Settlement Agreement entered between the parties as of June 1, 2023, appears, upon preliminary review, to be fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Classes. Accordingly, for settlement purposes only, the proposed settlement in preliminarily approved, pending a Final Approval Hearing. The Court has considered the proposed settlement of the claims asserted by a class of consumers defined as follows (the "Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class"): All persons located in the United States (1) for whom CACI contacted in an attempt to collect a debt or communicated credit information about to Experian, Equifax, or Trans Union; (2) arising from a debt where the original creditor of the loan was either Plain Green, Great Plains, or MobiLoans; (3) within one year prior to the filing of this action. As to the Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class, Judge Chhabria finds the prerequisites to a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) have been preliminarily satisfied, for settlement purposes only. For settlement purposes only, the Court finds that the Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class is preliminarily maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because CACi's conduct is generally applicable to the Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class, so that final injunctive relief as set forth in Section 4.3 of the Settlement Agreement is appropriate respecting the Rule 23(b)(2) Class as a whole. Because this portion of the Settlement is for injunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), Judge Chhabria says there will be no ability for Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class Members to request exclusion from the Settlement. All Rule 23(b)(2) Settlement Class Members will, therefore, be bound by all subsequent proceedings, orders, and judgments in this action. The Court has considered the proposed settlement of the claims asserted by the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class, defined as: All persons located in the United States (1) for whom CACI collected payment from a consumer; (2) in connection with an account where the original creditor of the loan was either Plain Green, Great Plains, or MobiLoans; (3) within one year prior to the filing of this action. Excluded from the class are all persons who have signed a written release of their claim, counsel in this case, and the Court and its employees. As to the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class, the prerequisites to a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) have been preliminarily satisfied, for settlement purposes only. For settlement purposes only, the Court finds that the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class is preliminarily maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because it appears that class treatment of these claims will be efficient and manageable, thereby achieving an appreciable measure of judicial economy, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. As to class membership, Judge Chhabria finds the Rule 23(b)(3) Class List is determinative. No individual will be bound by the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Release or entitled to the benefits of membership in the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class unless such individual appears on the Rule 23(b)(3) Class List. All Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Members on the Class List will be given the opportunity to opt out of the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class. Judge Chhabria holds that if the Settlement Agreement is not finally approved, is not upheld on appeal, or is otherwise terminated for any reason before the Effective Date, then, the Settlement Class will be decertified; the Settlement Agreement and all negotiations, proceedings, and documents prepared, and statements made in connection therewith, will be without prejudice to any Party and will not be deemed or construed to be an admission or confession by any Party of any fact, matter, or proposition of law; and all Parties will stand in the same procedural position as if the Settlement Agreement had not been negotiated, made, or filed with the Court. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Meeks, Delacruz, Laguna, and Leonard as the Class Representatives. The Court also appoints the law firms of Kelly Guzzo PLC, Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., and Gupta Wessler, PLLC, as counsel for the Settlement Class ("Class Counsel"). The Court appoints Continental DataLogix, LLC, as Settlement Administrator for both Settlement Classes. The Settlement Administrator will implement the agreed-upon Notice Plan in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. To the extent the Parties or Notice Administrator determine that ministerial changes to the Notices are necessary before disseminating either to the Settlement Class Members, they may make such changes without further application to the Court. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) on Nov. 9, 2023 (at least 150 days after entry of Preliminary Approval Order), at 1:00 p.m. The hearing will be held remotely using Zoom. The Court finds this manner of giving notice, satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process, and will constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. Any Settlement Class Member, who wishes to be heard orally at the Final Approval Hearing, or who wishes for any objection to be considered, must file a written notice of objection to be filed with the Court no later than 30 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. Notwithstanding this deadline, objections solely as to attorneys' fees or costs may be made no later than seven days after the filing of a motion for the award of attorneys' fees or costs. The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over this action to consider all further matters arising out of or connected with the injunctive relief aspect of this settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 1, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wwhv7by from Leagle.com. FLORIDA: Underfunds HBCU State Schools, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Washington of The Root reports that although Florida has been catching a lot more heat recently thanks to Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, racial inequity is hardly a new problem in the sunshine state. In fact, in a lawsuit, students at Florida A&M (FAMU), say the state has been chronically underfunding the historically Black college for the last 33 years. Last week, a Florida judge allowed the class-action lawsuit against the state to go forward, meaning FAMU students could see relief for what they describe as a clear-cut example of racial discrimination. The lawsuit, brought by six students at the HBCU, claims that the state has been appropriating significantly more money to non-HBCU state schools. Exactly how much more money are we talking about here? Well, the lawsuit estimates that the HBCU has been underfunded to the tune of $1.3 billion over the last three decades. And you don't have to take the students' word for it when it comes to the disparities across the state A 2022 Forbes report found that in 2020 the state appropriated roughly $13,000 per student for FAMU, and $15,600 per student for University of Florida students. FAMU is also significantly more reliant on state funding to operate which makes the noticeable gap in public funding per student even more of an issue. "Throughout its history and up to the present day, Florida has purposefully engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination, principally through disparate funding," alleges the lawsuit, "that has prevented HBCUs, including FAMU, from achieving parity with their traditionally White institution ("TWI") counterparts." Britney Denton, a doctoral student at FAMU's College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences and a plaintiff in the case, says the disparities in treatment are obvious. "There is a vast difference between the two universities in the city of Tallahassee," Denton told the Washington Post, referencing the majority white Florida State University. "If you go to the north side, you'll see the magnificent sports facilities and amazing housing. But when you get to the south side where the HBCU is, it's a different world because we aren't given the same resources." [GN] FORT BELVOIR: Plaintiffs File Bid For Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JOHN FISCHER and ASHLEY FISCHER, et al., v. FORT BELVOIR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Proposed Class Representatives ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the case as class action; -- certify the proposed classes; and -- appointing Class Representatives for the proposed classes; and -- appointing counsel for the classes. The Plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 23(b)(3) of the following classes: -- The VRLTA/Contract Class: "All leaseholders and other permanent residents of the Villages at Fort Belvoir who entered into lease agreements with the Defendants for residential housing units during the five years prior to the date of filing of the complaint with documented complaints of mold in their leased homes." -- The Displaced Families Subclass: "All leaseholders and other permanent residents of the Villages at Fort Belvoir who entered into lease agreements with the Defendants for residential housing units during the five years prior to the date of filing of the complaint, and who, pursuant to the standardized policies, procedures, and practices of the Defendants, paid full rent while physically displaced from their leased homes due to maintenance-related defects including mold." This class excludes any tenants claiming personal injury related to their tenancy. -- The VCPA Class: "All leaseholders and other permanent residents of the Villages at Fort Belvoir who entered into lease agreements with the Defendants for residential housing units during the two years prior to the date of filing of the complaint with documented complaints of mold in their leased homes and who have not accepted a cure offer." The Plaintiffs also request certification of the following class under Rule 23(b)(2): -- The Injunctive Class: "All tenants residing in The Villages at Fort Belvoir who currently have ongoing lease agreements for the privatized military housing residential housing units with FBRC and have observed visible mold in their homes." The Plaintiffs also seek certification a "Public Nuisance" issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) to resolve the following common questions which are capable of class-wide resolution: 1. Whether Virginia Code section 8.01-226.12(E) creates a tort duty for landlords to perform proper mold remediation when visible mold has occurred, and, if not; 2. Whether the leases imposed on the Defendants a tort duty of care to comply with Virginia’s building and housing codes; 3. Whether the accumulation of mold in a leased premises creates an actionable private nuisance against a landlord under Virginia’s common law; 4. To a reasonable tenant, would the accumulation of mold interfere with the pleasure, comfort and enjoyment that a person normally derives from the occupancy of a home? Excluded from each proposed class are the Defendants, any entity in which any the Defendant has a controlling interest, and the Defendants' officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from each proposed class are any judicial officer presiding over this matter, members of their immediate family, and members of their judicial staff. The Proposed Class Representatives John Fischer, Ashley Fischer, Jorge Roman, Raven Roman, John Lane, Cassandra Lane, Samuel Vidot, Rachel Vidot, James Wayenberg, Christine Wayenberg, Cody Adams, Gabrielle Adams, Denzale Bragg, Briana Bragg, Steven Aguilar, Megan Aguilar, Andrew Armstrong, Leslie Gonzalez, Jose Berdecia-Hernandez, Kimberly Melendez, Zachary Camechis, Alacia Camechis, Jennifer Cocco, James Jackson, Kaitlin Coe, James Hayward, Danielle Hayward, Bryson Hunt, Abnie Hunt, Bradley Shirley, Raymond Warden, and Tabitha Warden. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42CWqiv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. Joseph M. Langone, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM PLC 10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro jlangone@wiselaw.pro - and - Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 jrr@rhinelawfirm.com RAS@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. WALLACE AND GRAHAM, PA. 525 N. Main Street Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Kenya Reddy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN LAW FIRM 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: Jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com Kreddy@ForThePeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn E. Bonorchis, Esq. Joseph Doukmetzian, Esq. Richard G, Morgan, Esq. Tina Syring, Esq. Emily Suhr, Esq. LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 100 Light Street, Suite 1300 Baltimore, MD, 21202 E-mail: Kathryn.Bonorchis@lewisbrisbois.com Joseph.Doukmetzian@lewisbrisbois.com Richard.Morgan@lewisbrisbois.com Tina.Syring@lewisbrisbois.com Emily.Suhr@lewisbrisbois.com FORT LAUDERDALE: Chinchilla Sues Over Unprotected Patients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL CHINCHILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORT LAUDERDALE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., Case No. CACE-23-014232 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 1, 2023) alleges claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Defendant's failure properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable and financial information (PII) of Plaintiff and the Class members. On or around November 5, 2021, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's database, accessed Plaintiffs and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information from Defendant's systems. However, it did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until over one year later, on March 29, 2023. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons PII was compromised because of Defendant's failure to: adequately protect their PII; inadequate information security practices; and effectively secure equipment and the database containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Fort Lauderdale Behavioral Health Center, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Clearwater, FL. The company provides behavioral health and substance abuse medical services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. 110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks to Seal Redactions in Ewalt 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 its bid to maintain certain redactions in the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under seal. On May 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel, which contained certain redacted material that has been temporarily sealed. As required by S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.2.1 and the Court's March 1, 2022, order, the Defendant now moves to permanently extend the temporary seal as to certain limited redactions in the brief in support of the Plaintiffs' Motion and the exhibits. GateHouse Ohio has narrowly tailored its redactions so that only its confidential financial data and proprietary corporate, customer service and marketing strategy information, as well as the information that protects the privacy interests of third parties, will be kept under seal. The Court should therefore grant GateHouse Ohio's motion and permit the redacted material to the Plaintiffs' Motion, as contained in Exhibit 1 hereto, to be kept under seal. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CrAtIH 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 GEO GROUP: Parties Stipulation to Continue Briefing Deadlines OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez Gomez et al v. The GEO Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00868 (E.D. Cal., Filed July 13, 2022), the Hon. Judge Ana De Alba entered an order granting the parties stipulation to continue the briefing deadlines. -- The Defendant to file their oppositions no later than August 4, 2023. -- The Court orders the Plaintiffs to file their replies to the oppositions no later than September 1, 2023. On May 18, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial class certification and motion for summary judgment. The nature of suit states Labor -- Civil Rights. GEO Group is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in private prisons and mental health facilities in North America, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.[CC] GLENN O. HAWBAKER: Bid for Class Suit Certification Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- Marcellus Drilling News reports that Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc., long known for providing stone quarries and asphalt plants in Pennsylvania and Ohio, also provides civil construction services for shale well sites. In August 2021, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro announced a plea deal with Hawbaker to pay back $20 million in alleged "stolen wages" from over 1,000 Hawbaker employees (see PA Construction Co. Glenn Hawbaker Pays $20M for "Stolen Wages"). According to Shapiro's office, Hawbaker deposited retirement funds from one set of employees into a retirement fund account that benefits other employees, including Hawbaker management. Following the plea deal, three former Hawbaker employees filed a civil lawsuit against the company, asking a federal judge to convert their lawsuit into a class action (see Judge Asked to Certify Class Action Against Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc.). On June 6, 2023 the judge granted their request. [GN] GREENIX PEST: Hutt Loses Bid for Conditional Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH HUTT, v. GREENIX PEST CONTROL, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01108-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class Certification and court-supervised notice to potential Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). On May 19, 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, Case No. WL 3559657 (6th Cir. 2023). That decision changes the test for determining whether to issue Court-approved notice to potential plaintiffs in an action brought under section 216(b) of the FLSA; instead of the "modest factual showing" of similarity that courts in the Sixth Circuit applied previously, the standard now "for a district court to facilitate notice of an FLSA suit to other employees, [is that] the plaintiffs must show a 'strong likelihood' that those employees are similarly situated to the plaintiffs themselves." In light of A&L Homecare, to the extent that Mr. Hutt's Motion seeks conditional class certification, the Motion is denied. To the extent that Mr. Hutt's Motion seeks court-supervised notice to potential plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Court orders Mr. Hutt to file a supplemental brief addressing whether he can show a "strong likelihood" that his proposed potential plaintiff employees are similarly situated to himself. This supplemental brief shall be filed within 10 days of the date of this Order. The Defendant shall respond with any supplemental brief within 10 days thereafter. A&L Homecare also clarified that "the term 'certification' has no place in FLSA actions." Greenix is a provider of environmentally friendly pest control and animal management in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X7cTub at no extra charge.[CC] GROUP HEALTH: Midthun-Hensen Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANGELA MIDTHUN-HENSEN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Angela Midthun-Hensen, as representatives of their minor Daughter, K.H., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00608-slc, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. This class action is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of their 13-year-old daughter who has autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and similarly situated children who were denied coverage of autism treatment at age 10 or older by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs assert three causes of action: (1) to recover benefits due under GHC's health plan, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et. seq., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as enforced through 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) GHC violated the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 ("Parity Act") by failing to provide the sought-after treatment; and (3) GHC violated Wis. Stat. Section 632.895, which mandates health insurers to provide certain coverage to treat ASD. On June 23, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Stephen L. Crocker on May 8, 2023. On same day, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant dismissing the case. The Court ruled that "GHC is entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim that its claim denials violated Wisconsin's autism mandate, Wis. Stat. Sec. 632.895(12m). Broadly speaking, the statute specifies that Wisconsin health insurers must cover certain "evidence-based" intensive-level and non-intensive-level services for ASD. As the Plaintiffs concede, this claim rests on the same foundation as its ERISA claim, namely, that GHC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in finding that the treatments for which the Plaintiffs requested coverage were not "evidence based." Therefore, this claim fails for the same reasons that the Plaintiffs' ERISA claim fails." The appellate case is captioned Angela Midthun-Hensen, et al. v. Group Health Cooperative of South Central, Inc., Case No. 23-2100, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on May 31, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript information sheet was due on June 14, 2023; and -- Tony Hensen and Angela Midthun-Hensen Appellants' brief is due on or before July 10, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ANGELA MIDTHUN-HENSEN, et al., as representative of her minor daughter, K.H., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Paul A. Kinne, Esq. GINGRAS, THOMSEN & WACHS LLP 8150 Excelsior Drive Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (608) 833-2632 Defendant-Appellee GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL, INC. is represented by: Jacob Harris, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP 33 E. Main Street P.O. Box 1379 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 255-4440 HENKEL CORP: E.D. Mo. Refuses to Remand Waller Suit to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled VALERIE WALLER, et al., Plaintiff v. HENKEL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00486-SEP (E.D. Mo.), Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to State Court. Plaintiff Valerie Waller brought this class action in state court against Defendants Henkel Corporation and Does 1 through 10, alleging breach of warranty, breach of implied contract under Missouri law and Maine law, unjust enrichment under Missouri law, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). The Plaintiff alleges that Henkel engaged in misleading and deceptive practices in marketing and selling "All"-branded liquid laundry detergent packaged in 88-fluid-ounce containers (the product). According to the Plaintiff, the product's label claims to provide detergent for "58 loads" of laundry, when it does not in fact provide enough detergent for 58 loads. She seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and "such further relief as the Court deems just" on behalf of a putative class of consumers, who purchased the product over a five-year period in Missouri. Henkel removed the case to this Court on April 17, 2023. On April 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing that jurisdiction is improper because Henkel does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. Judge Pitlyk finds that the Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional minimum is met in this case. In her motion, the Plaintiff argues that Henkel has failed to provide specific facts or evidence to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Specifically, the Plaintiff takes issue with the declaration of Erik Koepplin, Henkel's Associate Brand Manager, and argues that the declaration that Henkel's retail sales of the Products in Missouri were substantially in excess of $5 million is insufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirement. In response, Henkel filed an additional declaration from Koepplin, specifying that over the past five years, "Henkel's retail sales of the Products in Missouri were $5,386,269.00." Henkel argues that its notice of removal, along with its accompanying declarations, show by a preponderance of the evidence that a fact finder might legally conclude that the damages sought are greater than $5 million. Henkel is correct, Judge Pitlyk holds. Because the Defendant's sworn declarations are sufficient evidence to establish the amount in controversy, she finds that the Defendant has carried its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that this case meets the amount-in-controversy threshold under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). That conclusion is only bolstered when the total amount of sales is considered in conjunction with the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees, Judge Pitlyk says. Because Henkel has shown that this case meets CAFA's jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy, Judge Pitlyk holds that this case belongs in federal court unless the Plaintiff can establish to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than the requisite amount. She adds that the Plaintiff has not shown that it is legally impossible for her putative class to recover more than $5 million. Because the Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA's jurisdictional minimum, the Court says it has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), and remand must be denied. Accordingly, Judge Pitlyk denies Plaintiff Valerie Waller's Motion to Remand Case to State Court. The Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Briefing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Until Jurisdiction is Determined is denied as moot. The Plaintiff is ordered to respond to Defendant Henkel Corporation's Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 1, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/369kk7a4 from Leagle.com. HOME DEPOT: Class Action Settlement in Carlson Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign corporation; and THE HOME DEPOT, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01150-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and dismissing action with prejudice and final judgment. 1. The Court's prior order of February 16, 2023, granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement and the parties' Settlement Agreement, including the terms defined therein and all exhibits thereto, are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Court finds it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties, including all members of the Settlement Class who have not opted out of the matter. 3. The Court approves the Settlement, finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate to members of the Settlement Class and consistent and in compliance with all requirements of Washington and federal law for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Approval Motion. 4. The Court finds that the Notices mailed and emailed to members of the Settlement Class at their last known addresses provides the best notice practicable under the circumstances and that the Notice was distributed in accordance with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order. 5. The Court finds that Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and costs is fair and reasonable, and hereby approves the request for an attorneys’ fee award of 20% of the Gross Settlement Fund, or $1,160,000, plus litigation costs of $75,017.54. 6. The Court approves incentive payments from the Gross Settlement Fund in the amount of $10,000 to the named the Plaintiff and $250 each to the class members who were deposed by defense counsel for their time and service on behalf of the Settlement Class. 7. The Court approves payment in the amount of $22,000 from the Gross Settlement Fund to ILYM Group for its fees and costs as Settlement Administrator. Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services, including fuel and transportation rentals. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X1zzfD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Berger, Esq. Elizabeth Hanley, Esq. SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 401 Union Street, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 622-8000 E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com hanley@sgb-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Laurence A. Shapero, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 E-mail: laurence.shapero@ogletree.com HUMANA INC: Court Certifies Class in Moore Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENA MOORE ET AL, v. HUMANA, INC. ET AL., Case No. 3:21-cv-00232-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order certifying the following class: "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." The Court further dismisses all claims against the Defendants the Board of Directors of Humana Inc. and John Does 1-30 with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Humana is a for-profit American health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X3Lw4a at no extra charge.[CC] INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles McDermid Suit in PA Court --------------------------------------------------------- Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2023, that on March 12, 2020, a purported shareholder class action complaint, "McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim," was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming the Company and its former President and Chief Executive Officer as defendants. After additional motions were filed in the case, in June 2022 the parties negotiated an agreement in principle to settle the shareholder class action complaint, which was approved by the court in January 2023. The lawsuit alleged that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its development of a vaccine for COVID-19 in its public disclosures in violation of certain federal securities laws. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees. The plaintiffs' complaint was later amended to include certain of the company's other officers as defendants. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in Pennsylvania INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Argues No Obligation to Disclose Misconduct --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Pelly of Financial Review reports that Wealth giant Insignia Financial has argued it was under no obligation to disclose "appalling" misconduct to investors who are running a class action over losses dating back to 2015. Nicholas Owens, SC, representing Insignia, told the Federal Court last week the principal cause of the share price fall was "sensationalist" reporting by The Sydney Morning Herald in June 2015 about alleged staff insider trading. Mr Owens also said "rational investors" would not have been deterred by the revelations. The claim against the ASX-listed group, formerly known as IOOF, resumes on June 6, 2023 after the first three days were taken up with opening submissions. Led by Shine Lawyers and bankrolled by litigation funder LLS, the action alleges the company failed to disclose material misconduct including alleged insider trading and conflicts of interest, resulting in financial losses for shareholders. Michael Hodge, KC, for the shareholders, spent two days arguing IOOF had breached its continuous disclosure obligations by not revealing the misconduct when it became aware of it in 2014. "There's an observable drop in the share price . . . only explicable by the disclosure of the information," he told the court. On the day of the first Herald reports on IOOF, shares fell 13 per cent to $1.42 each. Mr Owens conceded "there were mistakes along the way within IOOF, and one can even accept, in some instances, there was conduct that cannot be excused". But he said the law attributed "a very narrow interest to people who are investors". "It's really, does this translate to a dollar more or a dollar less in my pocket?" he added. Mr Owens said there was no allegation of "broader systemic issues". "It is not submitted, as we understand it, that any of these errors of system did, in fact, produce any negative outcome for any customer, let alone any material financial impact for IOOF," he said. "One cannot reason from that and say in March 2014 any rational investor, if being told of all of those facts, would have said, 'I am concerned that IOOF is going to earn less money in the future than I thought it otherwise would'. " "There was no reason, we say, in March 2014 why IOOF ought to have appreciated that it needed to make any disclosure to the market in relation to improper share trading and, indeed, we say it would have been positively misleading for it to do so. " The same applied when it came to another allegation in the report - staff cheating on exams. "It's appalling conduct. But, again, the question is, in the narrow focus of an investor, does it translate to IOOF losing money." Mr Hodge noted that IOOF had conceded at least 16 breaches of its own risk policies, including unit pricing errors. However, Mr Owens argued they were not significant. "They're all the regrettable manifestation of the sorts of things that happen from time to time in a large company, but all they show is that this company has a very effective system in place for detecting breaches and then acts appropriately to remedy them." Insignia - formed by the merger of IOOF and National Australia Bank's MLC - has lost about 65 per cent of its market value since the banking royal commission, which heard evidence of misconduct by senior executives at the then-IOOF. [GN] INTEGRITY HOME: Faces Neff Suit Over Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael S. Neff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Integrity Home Solutions Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01214 (M.D. Fla., May 31, 2023) seeks to recover monetary damages for Plaintiff's unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Neff was hired by the Defendant from approximately November 21, 2022, through April 21, 2023, or more than 21 weeks, as a plumber to make plumbing repairs at customers' residences or businesses. Integrity Home Solutions is a maintenance company providing electrical, air conditioning, and plumbing repair services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Various Suits by Health Providers ------------------------------------------------------------- Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2023, that seven class action lawsuits were filed against the company. On June 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBS, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, or, collectively, the company Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the BCBS Lawsuit). The BCBS Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Lupin Inc., or, collectively, the BCBS Defendants. On June 18 and June 23, 2020, respectively, two additional class action lawsuits were filed against the defendants and the BCBS Defendants: one by the New York State Teamsters Council Health and Hospital Fund in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and another by the Government Employees Health Association Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (hereinafter referred to as the GEHA Lawsuit). On June 18, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, and Roxane Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, or, collectively, the City of Providence Defendants. On June 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd., Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA), Inc. and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., or collectively the UFCW Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the UFCW Lawsuit). On July 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the A.F. of L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc (hereinafter referred to as the AFL Plan Lawsuit). The AFL Plan Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc. On August 14, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Self-Insured Schools of California on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against the Company Defendants, as well as Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Endo International, plc, Endo Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings USA, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wockhardt USA LLC, Mallinckrodt plc, and Mallinckrodt LLC (hereinafter referred to as the Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit). On September 16, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by Ruth Hollman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, against the same defendants named in the Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit. On January 13, 2023, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle with the class action plaintiffs. On April 19, 2023, the court held a hearing on a motion for preliminary approval of this proposed settlement but has not issued a ruling. Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is a global biopharmaceutical company based in Ireland JOYCE CAMPBELL: Court Certifies Class in Caddell Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANSELM CADDELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. JOYCE A. CAMPBELL, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00091-DRC-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered an order: 1. certifying a class; 2. appointing Paul M. Laufman and Gregory A. Napolitano as class Counsel; and 3. directing counsel for the parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed agreed class notice to this Court within 14 days of this Opinion's issuance. The Plaintiffs and those individuals subject to a warrantless arrest by City of Fairfield Police Officers from February 1, 2017 until February 28, 2019, and who were held by the Butler County Sheriff’s office for more than 48 hours on charges pending in the Fairfield Municipal Court, if held without a post-arrest probable cause determination by a judicial officer and not otherwise subject to lawful detention for reasons unrelated to the warrantless arrest. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qGi6ND at no extra charge.[CC] JPMORGAN CHASE: Agrees to Settle Epstein Survivors' Suit for $290M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anders Hagstrom of FOXBusiness reports that JPMorgan Chase has reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit from victims of Jeffrey Epstein, the bank announced on June 12, 2023. The financial institution has yet to release details regarding the "agreement in principle," but it will shell out $290 million in payments to the victims, according a Reuters report. JPMorgan had been attempting to fend off the class action lawsuit for months. "Settlement is in the best interests of all parties, especially the survivors who were the victims of Epstein's terrible abuse," the bank and lawyers for the victims wrote in a joint statement. While the statement did not reveal a settlement amount publicly, Reuters cited a "person familiar" with the agreement who said the bank would pay roughly $290 million. The payment will go out to roughly 100 women who were victims of Epstein's. JAMIE DIMON SAYS HE NEVER DISCUSSED JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ACCOUNTS AT JPMORGAN; JES STALEY SAYS DIMON DID "We all now understand that Epstein's behavior was monstrous, and we believe this settlement is in the best interest of all parties, especially the survivors, who suffered unimaginable abuse at the hands of this man," JP Morgan wrote in a statement. "Any association with him was a mistake and we regret it. We would never have continued to do business with himx if we believed he was using our bank in any way to help commit heinous crimes," the bank added. The agreement comes weeks after JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon sat for a deposition with lawyers for the victims. The lawsuit alleged the bank had repeatedly ignored warnings that Epstein has involved in the sex trafficking of young women and girls. Dimon testified that he played no part in handling Epstein's accounts with the bank. "Our CEO reaffirmed after his deposition that, as he has previously said, that he never met with him, never emailed him, does not recall ever discussing his accounts internally, and was not involved in any decisions about his account," JP Morgan said in a statement at the time. "There are millions and millions of emails and other documents that have been produced in this case and not one comes close to even suggesting that he had any role in decisions about Epstein’s accounts. Lawyers for Epstein's victims filed a request to interview Dimon a second time last week. They claimed that the bank had dragged its feet in producing further documents that would have changed their initial questioning of Dimon. In a letter to Judge Jed Rakoff, an attorney for the Epstein victim wrote that JPMorgan's "untimely" and "inexplicably slow" delivery of documents was a strategic move. "By way of background, in May this Court admonished JPMC for producing documents at an inexplicably slow rate," the lawyer, Sigrid McCawley, wrote on June 9, 2023. The new settlement agreement, however, would render the matter of a second interview moot. [GN] KANKAKEE HOSPITALITY: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karnes v. Kankakee Hospitality LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order extending the deadline for motions for class certification to August 15, 2023.[CC] The nature of suit states Other Statutes - Constitutionality of State Statutes. KEY INSTALLATION: Spradlin Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER SPRADLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. KEY INSTALLATION SERVICES, INC., et. al, Case No. 3:23-cv-00120-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (a) conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collection; (b) requiring the Defendants within 10 days of the Court's Order, to produce in an electronic or computer readable format the full name, address(es), email address(es), and dates and locations of employment for each of the collective members; (c) authorizing notice to the members of the Proposed FLSA Collective. The class worked on projects around the country performing the same job duties. The individuals in the proposed collective are all paid on a day rate. Finally, all individuals in the proposed collective worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks and were not paid an overtime premium. Key Installation is a construction company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46fxd0X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com KIM KARDASHIAN: Motion to Dismiss Unfair Competition Claims Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nation World News Desk reports that the celebrities Kim Kardashian and Floyd Mayweather are once again in the headlines for a class action lawsuit due to improper promotion of the cryptocurrency EthereumMAX (EMAX). already disappeared. Although a class action lawsuit was filed against both in January 2022 for alleged promotion of a "pump and dump" scheme, was dismissed by a California federal judge in December 2022, however, In a new ruling on June 6, US District Judge Michael Fitzgerald declined to dismiss plaintiffs' "unfair competition" claims against reality star Kardashian and boxing champion Mayweather for their roles in promoting the EMAX token in 2021 ., Now, the judge has deemed it appropriate to revise the 162-page lawsuit in which he says Kardashian, Mayweather and NBA star Paul Pierce "profited at the expense of their fans." Promoting an investment opportunity that did not have a valid business plan." "The court is essentially dealing with a whole new trial with new defendants and several new litigants," Fitzgerald said., Judge Fitzgerald said that promoting a cryptocurrency token without disclosing that you have been paid to do so is a "dishonest and therefore unfair practice"., They said that the famous defendants didn't make any arguments to tip the scales in their favor, however, Warns Scott+Scott Class Action Lawyers Will Have to Explain How Celebrity Promotion of Token Affected Its Price, Sean Mason of Scott+Scott said deceptive celebrity endorsements are the essence of Emax's business model According to Reuters. Kardashian promoted the EMAX token in a post on Instagram in June 2021, while Mayweather donned the EMAX logo on his boxing suit in a match against YouTube star Logan Paul in the same month. According to their whitepaper, EthereumMax claims to be a "culture token" that "bridges the gap between the emergence of community tokens and well-known crypto foundation coins." It has nothing to do with Ethereum though. In October 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Kardashian with illegally promoting a cryptocurrency security., She agreed to pay $1.26 million in fines for her involvement in the EMAX promotion. The class action lawsuit sought damages for investors who bought the token because of the celebrity endorsement. However the actual quantity was not specified. [GN] KSF ACQUISITION: McCracken Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH MCCRACKEN individually and on behalf of all others situated; v. KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Case No. 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. entered an order granting the plaintiff's application for leave to file portions of motion for class certification and accompanying declarations and exhibits under seal. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43Enzmv at no extra charge.[CC] LOOP INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Suits in NY Court Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------- Loop Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2023, that two proposed class actions filed against the company were consolidated by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 13, 2020, the company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned "Olivier Tremblay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita, and Nelson Gentiletti," Case No. 7:20-cv-08538-NSR. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly failing to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects, which caused the company's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of Loop's securities between September 24, 2018, and October 12, 2020, inclusive. On October 28, 2020, the company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a second proposed class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Michelle Bazzini, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita, and Nelson Gentiletti, Case No. 7:20-cv-09031-NSR. The complaint allegations are similar in nature to those in the Tremblay class action. On January 4, 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the two proposed class-action lawsuits as "In re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation," Master File No. 7:20-cv-08538-NSR. Sakari Johansson and John Jay Cappa were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP were appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the class. The plaintiffs served a consolidated amended complaint on February 18, 2021, which alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly failing to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects, which caused the company's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. The consolidated amended complaint relies on the October 13, 2020 report published by a third party regarding the Company to support their allegations. The defendants served a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on April 27, 2021. The plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss was served on May 27, 2021, and the defendants' reply in support of the motion to dismiss was served on June 11, 2021. On March 1, 2022, the company and the current and former officer defendants entered into an agreement for the settlement of In re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, and, on March 4, 2022, advised the court of the agreement to settle. The agreement, which is subject to certain conditions, including court approval, required the company to pay $3.1 million to the plaintiff class. As a result, the company recorded a contingency loss of $2,519,220 which was included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities on February 28, 2022, and expected to be the company's approximate total cash contribution to the settlement and outstanding legal fees related to the lawsuit, net of the company's D&O insurance carriers' contribution. On May 24, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. On September 19, 2022, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice. The court held a final settlement hearing on January 5, 2023, after which the court entered an order and final judgment approving the class action settlement. Loop Industries is a technology company based in Canada. LOVE TRAVEL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Residual Amount of Fuel ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that consumers who purchase premium motor fuel from Love's gas stations regularly receive a "significant amount" of regular or mid-grade motor fuel in their first gallon of fuel, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff William Fudge claims Love's fuel pumps, after being used to pump regular or mid-grade motor fuel, retain a "residual amount" of motor fuel that becomes part of the first gallon of motor fuel pumped into the next vehicle. Fudge argues that, since around 70% of vehicles require regular motor fuel, consumers with vehicles requiring premium motor fuel "regularly paid the premium price for the first gallon of motor fuel for which they did not receive a gallon of premium motor fuel in return." "Premium Customers, therefore, regularly paid the premium motor fuel price for a gallon that contained a significant amount of lower-grade motor fuel," the Love's class action states. Fudge wants to represent individual classes of consumers from a total of 42 states who purchased premium motor fuel from a Love's gas station equipped with a single-nozzle fuel dispensing system after a customer who had used the same system to purchase regular or mid-grade motor fuel. Love's has known for years that it overcharges customers who purchase premium gas, says class action Fudge claims Love's has known for years that it was "retaining the benefit of selling regular or midgrade motor fuel for the price of premium motor fuel at the expense of its Premium Customers." Love's also could easily return the money it allegedly overcharges consumers who purchase premium motor fuel, however, it chooses not to, the Love's class action alleges. "Love's has made a business decision to retain the overcharge as a profit as opposed to refunding the same to Premium Customers," the Love's class action states. Fudge claims Love's is guilty of unjust enrichment and breach of express or implied-in-fact contract. He is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of restitutionary damages for himself and all class members. In another case involving a gas station, Arco AmPm agreed to a settlement in 2014 that resolved claims the company charged for more gas than what was actually pumped at its Oregon gas stations. The plaintiff is represented by Gordon Ball of Gordon Ball, PLLC, Thomas Bienert, Jr. and Daniel Goldman of Bienert Katzman Littrrell Williams LLP, Times Wang of North River Law PLLC, and Bryan E. Delius of Delius & McKenzie, PLLC. [GN] MACROGENICS INC: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of BRERS Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Macrogenics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2023, that the 4th Circuit affirmed the dismissal order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in a decision published on March 2, 2023 of a September 13, 2019 a securities class action complaint filed in said court by a Todd Hill naming the company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Koenig, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Karrels, as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the company's breast cancer treatment, "SOPHIA" trial. On August 17, 2020, the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge was appointed as Lead Plaintiff, and on October 16, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserted a putative class period stemming from February 6, 2019 to June 4, 2019. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 30, 2020. On September 29, 2021, the District Court issued an crder dismissing the case, with prejudice. On October 28, 2021 the Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in the Fourth Circuit. The company did not accrue any liability associated with this action as of December 31, 2022. Macrogenics, Inc. biopharmaceutical company based in Maryland. MANAGED CARE: Faces Class Suit Over Massive Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Texas Dentists for Medicaid Reform reports that a major consumer rights law firm is now looking into the possibility of a class action lawsuit against MCNA for its huge data breach of some 9 million clients back in February 2023, but just made public recently. Hagens Berman describes itself as "a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in 1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law." "MCNA needs to be held accountable" According to their release last June 8, 2023, they asked affected MCNA clients to contact them to "help hold MCNA accountable." "The sheer quantity and sensitive nature of the information compromised in this breach is staggering," said Thomas E. Loeser, partner at Hagens Berman and the attorney leading the investigation. "Healthcare companies owe it to their customers to take every available measure to protect the precious data they collect, and MCNA failed in its duty." Successful litigation for past data breaches Hagens Berman was one of the legal firms responsible for obtaining a $350 million settlement for consumers with T-Mobile for their 2021 data breach. The release notes that identity theft from such data breaches occurs to roughly 65% of consumers so affected. Apparent delay in reporting breach is unconscionable If it is true that MCNA waited until late May to notify authorities and affected clients of the breach when it occurred back in late February, that delay is unconscionable. Dentists should alert MCNA clients to danger of possible identity theft TDMR suggests that Texas dentists should inform their MCNA clients that their personal data has probably been compromised and that they can learn more and join the firm's investigation by visiting the firm's website. [GN] MASTERCARD INC: UK Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Interchange Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pymnts reports that proposed lawsuits against Mastercard and Visa in the United Kingdom have been halted. The country's Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled on June 8, 2023 that the four lawsuits proposed by Commercial and Interregional Card Claims (CICC) cannot proceed now but that the lawyers can provide revised proposals within eight weeks. CICC is a special purpose vehicle that brought the lawsuits last year alleging that merchants were overcharged by the payments processors in the form of multilateral interchange fees, Reuters reported on June 8, 2023. CICC had proposed collective proceedings -- the country's equivalent of a class action in the United States -- on behalf of merchants, according to the report. Visa and Mastercard already face other lawsuits in the U.K. over these fees and argued in this case that those lawsuits negate any need for CICC's new ones. In the U.S., the two payments processors settled a class-action lawsuit in March for $5.6 billion after 15 years of litigation. The settlement, which was approved by a federal appeals court, involved an antitrust case brought against them by 12 million merchants alleging that Visa and Mastercard had injured them by charging supracompetitive fees on payment card transactions. The settlement resolved retailers' claims that the payment card networks overcharged them on interchange fees and barred retailers from steering their customers toward other payment methods that did not charge fees. In other news involving the payment networks in the U.S., the Credit Card Competition Act legislation was reintroduced on June 7, 2023 with more sponsors from both parties than it's had before. This proposed legislation would mandate banks to enable card payments to be routed over at least one network that competes with Mastercard and with Visa. Proponents say the legislation would give merchants a greater range of choice -- because they would have the option to embrace networks with fees, including interchange fees cheaper than those seen with Mastercard and Visa. Opponents say there is no evidence that merchants would lower prices to consumers even if the bill were to pass. National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU) President and CEO Dan Berger said: "Expanding interchange price controls and routing mandates to credit cards is bad policy, pushed by big box retailers who are looking to pad their bottom line." [GN] MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST: Faces Securities Suit in Alabama Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Properties Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2023, that on April 13, 2023, the company and certain of its executives were named as defendants in a second putative federal securities class action lawsuit, also alleging false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions resulting in artificially inflated prices for our common stock, filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Case No. 2:23-cv-00486. The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of its common stock between July 15, 2019, and February 22, 2023, and unspecified damages including interest and an award of reasonable costs and expenses. Medical Properties Trust, Inc. is a self-advised REIT focused on investing in and owning net-leased healthcare facilities based in Alabama. MERCER UNIVERSITY: Lehnes Sues Over Failure to Secure PII --------------------------------------------------------- Ana Lehnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CORPORATION OF MERCER UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:23-cv-00195-TES (M.D. Ga., June 7, 2023), is brought against Mercer University for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to: full names, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers (collectively, "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect students' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence, at a minimum, and violates federal and state statutes. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to damages and injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, resident, and a citizen of the State of Georgia. Mercer University is a private university incorporated under the state laws of Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison E. McCarthy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALLIE MCCARTHY 1055 Prince Avenue, Suite 2 Athens, GA 30606 Phone: (678) 637-3201 Fax: (888) 645-6243 Email: attorneymccarthy@gmail.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com METLIFE GROUP: Suit Seeks to Certify 401(k) Plan Participant Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rita Kohari, John Radolec, and Mohani Jaikaran, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the MetLife 401(k) Plan (f/k/a the Savings and Investment Plan for Employees of Metropolitan Life and Participating Affiliates), v. MetLife Group, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the MetLife Group Benefit Plans Investment Advisory Committee, the Employee Benefits Committee of MetLife Group, Inc., and John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 1:21-cv-06146-JHR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed class in this action (or in the alternative, such other class(es) as the Court may determine to be appropriate): "All participants and beneficiaries of the MetLife 401(k) Plan who were invested in the MetLife Index Funds at any time on or after July 19, 2015, excluding any persons with responsibility for the Plan’s investment or administrative functions." In addition, the Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs as the class representatives for the class and the Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel. MetLife is a provider of insurance, employee benefits, annuities and asset management products and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J7Pbbp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Grace I. Chanin, Esq. Ben Bauer, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com bspecht@nka.com gchanin@nka.com bbauer@nka.com MGM RESORTS: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach in Quebec -------------------------------------------------------- Lex Group Inc. of Cision reports that notice is further to the Superior Court of Quebec judgment dated August 3, 2022 (file number 500-06-001078-209) which authorized a class action against MGM Resorts International ("MGM") regarding a data breach which occurred on or about July 7, 2019 (the "Data Breach"). The class action seeks to obtain compensatory and/or moral damages allegedly resulting from the Data Breach, as well as punitive damages. The authorization judgment is a preliminary step that allows the class action to begin. This judgment did not determine any liability at this stage. The Plaintiff maintains that his class action against MGM is well founded both in fact and in law. MGM intends to vigorously contest the merits of this class action and will present its defense at trial. Who is affected? You are affected by the class action if you (including your estate, executors or personal representatives) are or were in Quebec and your personal and/or financial information was lost by and/or stolen from MGM as a result of the Data Breach that occurred on or about July 7, 2019. Class members may have previously received a notice from MGM regarding this Data Breach. If the class action is successful, all persons in Quebec corresponding to the criteria mentioned above may be eligible to receive compensation. A class member does not have to pay for the attorneys' fees and disbursements which will be paid from the damages that may be awarded through the class action, if applicable. The Court will be asked to decide the reasonableness of the class counsel legal fees. The Court may decide that such fees and costs will be deducted from the amounts owed to the class, if any. Relevant information concerning the progress of the class action: In the context of the legal proceedings in this case, which will occur in the District of Montreal, the Plaintiff asks the Court to determine whether MGM committed certain faults in relation to the Data Breach with regard to the protection of Class Members' personal and or financial information and if MGM committed faults after learning of the Data Breach. The Court will also have to determine if MGM is liable to pay compensatory and/or moral damages, as well as punitive damages to the Class Members and if so in what amounts. A class member who wishes to be included in the class action has nothing to do. A Class Member has the right to intervene in the present class action (but no obligation to do so). A Class Member who wishes to exclude themselves (opt out) from the class action and avoid being bound by the judgment which will be rendered must send a notice no later than July 24, 2023, in writing to the clerk of the Superior Court of Quebec in Montreal (with a copy to info@lexgroup.ca). The full procedure for opting out is explained in the Detailed version of the present notice. The Opt Out Form is available here: https://www.lexgroup.ca/wp-content/uploads/Opt-Out-Form_EN.pdf. Please read carefully the Detailed Notice of Authorization of a Class Action available here: https://www.lexgroup.ca/wp-content/uploads/Long-Form-Notice_EN-1.pdf. For more information on the class action: Please visit the webpage dedicated to this class action on the class counsel's website: https://www.lexgroup.ca/classaction/mgm-resorts-international-data-breach-quebec-class-action/ or contact the class counsel at the following coordinates (your name and any information provided will be kept confidential): Lex Group Inc. Mtre David Assor 4101 Sherbrooke Street West Westmount, QC, H3Z 1A7 Phone: (514) 451-5500 Fax: (514) 940-1605 Email: info@lexgroup.ca Website: www.lexgroup.ca Please consult the Lex Group website for the Long Form version of the present Notice, including the full text of the principal issues / questions that the Court will be asked to deal with collectively and the list of orders that the Plaintiff is asking the Court to issue once it has decided these questions: www.lexgroup.ca THE CONTENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN ORDERED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC. [GN] NELSON-RIGG USA: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelson-Rigg USA, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nelson-Rigg USA, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04677 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nelson Rigg USA -- https://www.nelsonrigg.com/ -- proudly producing the very best motorcycle apparel, soft luggage and covers since 1982.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com NEOGENOMICS INC: Faces Goldenberg Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Neogenomics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2023, that on December 16, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned "Daniel Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc., Douglas VanOort, Mark Mallon, Kathryn McKenzie, and William Bonello" was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the company and certain of the company's current and former officers as defendants. This lawsuit was filed by a stockholder who claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between February 27, 2020 and April 26, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the company's menu of tests, business operations and compliance with health care laws and regulations. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and expert fees. Neogenomics, Inc. operates a network of cancer-focused testing laboratories based in Florida. NEW YORK: Court Overrules Talukder's Objections ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.D. A. TALUKDER, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, and KIM GHATT, Case No. 1:22-cv-01452-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order overruling Talukder's objections, and Judge Aaron's Report is adopted in full. Pursuant to the Court's April 27, 2023, order, the parties shall propose next steps in this matter by June 2, 2023, and the Defendants shall answer the Complaint no later than June 16, 2023. Accordingly, Talukder has failed to establish irreparable harm as required to obtain the preliminary injunctive relief he seeks. Because a preliminary injunction cannot issue absent a showing of irreparable harm, the Court does not address whether Talukder has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. -- Judge Aaron Correctly Concluded that Talukder is Not Currently a DOCCS Employee First, Talukder objects to Judge Aaron's conclusion that he is not a DOCCS employee, asserting that "the record is clear" that "as a Corrections Officer Trainee, [he] is a DOCCS employee." He further argues that because he "is" a DOCCS employee, he is a member of the putative Sughrim class, and that he is therefore entitled to an extension of the Sughrim Consent Order. The Court disagrees. The Second Circuit applies a two-part test in determining whether an individual is an employee, as defined by Title VII. First, a plaintiff "must show he was hired by the putative employer by establishing that he received remuneration for the work he performed." -- Judge Aaron Correctly Concluded that Talukder Fails to Demonstrate Irreparable Harm Next, Talukder objects to Judge Aaron's conclusion that DOCCS's refusal to allow him to become a corrections officer trainee with his three-inch beard does not constitute irreparable harm, thwarting his entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief. For the following reasons, Talukder's objection is overruled. The Plaintiff M.D. A. Talukder, a Muslim man seeking to become a New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) officer, brings this action against the Defendants State of New York, DOCCS, and two individuals, DOCCS Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci and Kim Ghatt, the Acting Director of the DOCCS Training Academy (the State Officials). Talukder alleges violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq., asserting that the Defendants refused to allow him to serve as a trainee corrections officer after he declined to shave his beard consistent with his Muslim faith. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qFi8W9 at no extra charge.[CC] NEWREZ LLC: Fails to Provide Audio Recordings, Ortiz Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Diomedes Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11222-PBS (D. Mass., May 31, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Lynn, Massachusetts who had a mortgage loan with Defendant and who within three years from the filing of the complaint have requested copies of audio recordings or transcripts of phone calls between themselves and Defendant pursuant to the law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with requested information available to Defendant in the ordinary course of business and failed to adequately investigate and respond to Plaintiff's requests. The Plaintiff is informed and believe that at least 40 other similarly-situated borrowers have requested audio recordings or transcripts of telephone calls between themselves and Defendant only to be likewise denied access to that information by Defendant, says the suit. NewRez LLC is a national mortgage lender.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicola S. Yousif, Esq. Matthew McKenna, Esq. SHIELD LAW, LLC 157 Belmont St. Brockton, MA 02301 Telephone: (508) 588-7300 E-mail: nick@shieldlaw.com matt@shieldlaw.com NIKE USA: Faces Ellis Class Suit Over Sustainability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ International Leather Maker reports that plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Ellis filed the complaint with a Missouri federal court, claiming that Nike presents its products as sustainable or environmentally friendly despite its materials not living up to these statements. Ellis is primarily targeting Nike's use of recycled synthetic materials, marketed as "green" and in "an effort to increase profits and to gain an advantage over its lawfully acting competitors". The lawsuit cites the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, which don't have legal weight but are a guideline for companies to avoid misrepresenting the environmental benefits of products and services. Ellis asserts that Nike's materials are not "sustainable and/or environmentally responsible materials" and that a limited number of the products actually contain recycled materials. According to Ellis, the company is encouraging consumers to "buy more clothes or throw away garments sooner, in the belief they can be recycled in some magic machine". She also claims harm on the basis that she purchased products based on the company's sustainable marketing language and "would not have purchased the products at all or would have been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for [them] if she had known that they were not sustainable and made from sustainable and environmentally friendly materials". Under this price premium allegation, Ellis is also accusing Nike of violating the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and is seeking certification of her proposed class action, injunctive relief and monetary damages. [GN] NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Allowed to File Class Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI POE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02065-SPG-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order granting the Plaintiff's application to file under seal Exhibits 2, 3 and 10 in support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, pursuant to Local Rule 79-5. Accordingly, publicly filed version of Exhibits 2, 3 and 10 shall be stricken from the record. Northwestern Mutual is a mutual life insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ct1FqI at no extra charge.[CC] NOVAVAX INC: Sinnathurai Class Suit in Maryland Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Novavax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2023, that on November 12, 2021, Sothinathan Sinnathurai filed a purported securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the company and certain members of senior management, captioned "Sothinathan Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., et al.," No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC. In January 26, 2022, the Maryland Court entered an order designating David Truong, Nuggehalli Balmukund Nandkumar, and Jeffrey Gabbert as co-lead plaintiffs in the Sinnathurai Action. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 11, 2022, alleging that the defendants made certain purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the company's ability to manufacture Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine, "NVX-CoV2373" on a commercial scale and to secure its regulatory approval. The amended complaint defines the purported class as those stockholders who purchased the company's securities between February 24, 2021, and October 19, 2021. In April 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In December 12, 2022, the Maryland Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Maryland Court dismissed all claims against two individual defendants and claims based on certain public statements challenged in the consolidated amended complaint. The Maryland Court denied the motion to dismiss the remaining claims and defendants and directed the Company and other remaining defendants to answer within fourteen days. On December 27, 2022, the company filed its answer and affirmative defenses. Novavax Inc. is a biotechnology company based in Maryland. OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification filing date to be set at the next Status Conference (to be scheduled). The Plaintiffs are former and current Co-Team Leaders (CTLs) who allege that they were misclassified as exempt from earning overtime compensation. On December 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for conditional certification of a nationwide collective. That motion is fully briefed and pending before this Court. The Plaintiffs also intend to move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for certification of a class of CTLs in New York. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class under Rule 23, pre-certification discovery "is often necessary in order to provide the court with sufficient information to determine whether certification is appropriate." Ollie's Bargain is an American chain of discount closeout retailers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CpIBcP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michele A. Moreno, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: mmoreno@vandallp.com OMNI FINANCIAL: Wood Class Suit Tossed for Failure to State a Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ISHAYKA WOOD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OMNI FINANCIAL OF NEVADA, INC., d/b/a Omni Financial and Omni Military Loans, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-1148 (LMB/IDD) (E.D. Va.), Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division: a. denies Omni's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; b. grants Omni's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; and c. dismisses the Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs Wood and Master Sergeant Delicia Godfrey brought the proposed class action against Omni for violations of the Military Lending Act, 10 U.S.C. Section 987, which was enacted to protect active duty service members and their dependents from predatory lending practices. After the Court granted in part and denied in part Omni's motion to dismiss the original complaint, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint. Before the Court are Omni's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Military Lending Act (MLA) is a law (10 U.S.C. Section 987) enacted in 2006 to safeguard active duty service members and their dependents from predatory lending practices. It was prompted by a Department of Defense (DOD) report that highlighted the detrimental effects of predatory lending on military readiness, troop morale, and the overall cost of maintaining a volunteer fighting force. To address these concerns, Congress passed the MLA, which imposes disclosure obligations, lending requirements, and restrictions on creditors providing consumer credit to covered members of the armed forces, namely active duty service members and their dependents. Omni, operating as Omni Financial and Omni Military Loans, is an installment lender specializing in loans for active duty service members and their dependents. They have branches near major military bases in several states and extend 90% of their loans to military personnel. Their website offers fast installment loans ranging from $500 to $10,000 with terms of 6 to 36 months. However, the Amended Complaint alleges that Omni's lending practices towards service members, including the Plaintiffs, violate the MLA. The Amended Complaint claims that Omni's installment loans violated the MLA in four ways. Firstly, the Complaint alleges that Omni's Repayment Agreement and Disclosure Form incorrectly calculated the Military Annual Percentage Rate (MAPR) by excluding prepaid finance charges, resulting in a MAPR exceeding the 36% interest rate cap for certain loans. Secondly, Omni is accused of unlawfully refinancing loans by rolling over previous loans into new ones. Thirdly, Omni allegedly required borrowers to establish military allotments or preauthorized electronic fund transfers as a condition for loan approval, which is prohibited by the MLA. Lastly, the Complaint states that Omni required borrowers to provide a security interest in their bank accounts, which is also prohibited under the MLA. Omni recently faced an investigation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for violating the MLA, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. To resolve the enforcement action, Omni agreed to a Consent Order on Dec. 21, 2020. The CFPB found that Omni violated the MLA by requiring covered members to repay loans through allotments and benefiting from this practice, while depriving service members of alternative repayment options. Additionally, it violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by mandating borrowers to provide bank account information and preauthorize electronic fund transfers in case of default. The CFPB concluded that Omni also violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by offering a financial product that did not conform to federal laws. The Consent Order imposed various remedies, including prohibiting Omni from conditioning loans on repayment methods, informing borrowers of alternative repayment options, and refraining from incentivizing or considering allotment authorization in employee evaluations. Omni was required to pay a civil monetary penalty of $2,175,000 to the CFPB. No compensatory monetary relief was granted to affected service members, and Omni was prohibited from offsetting any potential compensatory remedies based on the penalty paid to the CFPB in private actions. On Oct. 12, 2022, Wood filed a four-count Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") against Omni to fill the void left by the CFPB Consent Order by obtaining necessary actual damages, declaratory and injunctive relief for service members and their dependents like the Plaintiff and the class for Omni's violations of the MLA. Wood sought to certify a class covering the five years preceding the date this civil action was filed, consisting of four subclasses each representing one of the alleged MLA violations. Count I alleged a violation of the MLA's prohibition on charging interest rates in excess of 36% MAPR, 10 U.S.C. Section 987(b) (the "Interest Rate Claim"). Count II alleged a violation of the MLA's prohibition on loan roll overs and refinancing, 10 U.S.C. Section 987(e)(1) (the "Roll Over Claim"). Count III alleged that Omni violated the MLA, 10 U.S.C. Section 987(e)(6), 32 C.F.R. Section 232.8(g), by requiring repayment by allotment or preauthorized electronic fund transfer as a condition for obtaining a loan (the "Allotment Claim"). Count IV alleged that Omni violated the MLA, 10 U.S.C. Section 987(e)(5), 32 C.F.R. Section 232.8(e)(3), by conditioning the extension of consumer credit upon the borrower identifying a bank account to be used as a security interest (the "Security Interest Claim"). On Nov. 23, 2022, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It also filed a motion to strike the class action allegations as meritless and the allegations about the CFPB Consent Order as unduly prejudicial. On Jan. 20, 2023, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing and granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It found that many of the alleged MLA violations appeared to be time-barred, but at the insistence of the Plaintiffs' counsel agreed to permit Wood to replead the statute of limitations issue, along with all four MLA violations. The Court also denied defendant's motion to strike the class action allegations and references to the CFPB Consent Order. On Feb. 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint, which added Godfrey as a named plaintiff and alleged the same four violations of the MLA as the original Complaint: the Interest Rate Claim (Count I), the Roll Over Claim (Count II), the Allotment Claim (Count III), and the Security Interest Claim (Count IV). They seek rescission of the loans, reimbursement of the total interest paid, damages of not less than $500 for each violation, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. On Feb. 17, 2023, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. On March 2, 2023, the day before the Plaintiffs' response to the Defendant's motions to dismiss was due, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, in which the Plaintiffs moved to file a Second Amended Complaint that would dismiss Count I of the First Amended Complaint, 10 U.S.C. Section 987(b) (The Interest Rate Claim) and not add any new claims, and requested a new briefing schedule as to any motion to dismiss filed by defendant in response to the Second Amended Complaint. On March 3, 2023, the Court denied the motion for leave to amend, finding that there was no need for the Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint because they could make the requested amendment by voluntarily dismissing Count I from the Amended Complaint. It directed the Plaintiffs to timely file their response to the pending motions to dismiss, and the Plaintiffs timely filed their Opposition. In a footnote in their Opposition memorandum, the Plaintiffs indicated that they stipulate and agreed to the dismissal of Count I, which the Parties negotiated to materially streamline ongoing discovery, and therefore the Interest Rate Claim will be dismissed without prejudice. The Defendant's motions to dismiss have been fully briefed and oral argument has been held. The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. In resolving the Defendant's motions, Judge Brinkema first evaluates whether the Plaintiffs have constitutional standing, then turns to the MLA's statute of limitations, and finally considers whether claims that are within the statute of limitations are plausible. Because the Plaintiffs have stipulated to the dismissal of Count I, the Interest Rate Claim, it is no longer before the Court. In sum, Judge Brinkema grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim because all but two of the Plaintiffs' loans are time-barred, and for those two loans, the Amended Complaint does not allege a plausible claim for relief. At oral argument, the Plaintiffs' counsel urged the Court not to dismiss the Amended Complaint, pleading that they be afforded an opportunity to obtain relief for their clients who are stuck in a debt trap. The Court recognizes that the MLA serves an important purpose in protecting service members from predatory lending practices and that the Plaintiffs seek to further the statute's protections and obtain relief for similarly situated service members, particularly on the heels of the CFPB's investigation of Omni; however, Judge Brinkema opines taht the Plaintiffs already had the benefit of filing an Amended Complaint after being confronted with an extensive motion to dismiss which raised most of the legal and factual issues the Amended Complaint was supposed to address. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint did not address many of those issues, and when confronted with them once again in the Defendants' subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Plaintiffs' Opposition failed to adequately respond to those issues. A court is not required to give the Plaintiffs repeated chances to amend when they have been previously granted leave to amend but failed to address the problems with the pleading. Moreover, they did not request "leave to amend" until the conclusion of their Opposition memorandum and did not propose any amendments that would cure the identified deficiencies. This is not a proper way to move for leave to amend. Accordingly, for these reasons, Judge Brinkema denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, grants its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and dismisses the Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/45vru2bn from Leagle.com. OREGON: Court Orders Deposition of Former Governor in COVID-19 Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Conrad Wilson of OPB reports that a federal magistrate has ordered that former Oregon Gov. Kate Brown can be deposed in a class-action lawsuit, specifically regarding her role in how the state responded to the coronavirus pandemic inside its prisons. It's the first time a current or former Oregon governor has been ordered to sit for a deposition in a civil case related to policy decisions during their time in office. The litigation, first filed in April 2020, represents a massive financial liability for the state. The lawsuit covers about 5,000 people who were in custody at one of the state's prisons and contracted COVID-19. A separate wrongful death class covers the estates of 45 others who were in prison at the time they died from the disease. In her order released on June 7, 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman states this is about more than the experience of one person in custody. "Instead, a certified class of thousands of individuals infected with COVID-19 while in the state's custody -- including the estates of dozens who died -- seek to ask Governor Brown questions about her knowledge of and actions regarding the spread of COVID-19 in Oregon's prisons while she served as Oregon's governor," Beckerman writes. For years, attorneys representing the state successfully argued against deposing Brown. They argued there were less intrusive means to get the same information and Brown was a high-ranking government official, which should protect her from being deposed. "Governor Brown was similarly elected from the mass of the people, and on the expiration of the time for which she was elected, she has returned to the mass of the people again," Beckerman writes. "Although the Court agreed with Defendants that deposing Governor Brown while she remained in office would interfere with her official duties as governor, the demands of the job have now remitted." A spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Justice confirmed on June 8, 2023 that the state plans to appeal Beckerman's decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Beckerman's order offers reasoning on how her ruling fits within the Ninth Circuit's own rulings on similar cases. Attorneys representing those in custody want to ask the former governor -- under oath -- about her decision to close two prisons during the pandemic and about information Brown received regarding an early release program plaintiffs' attorneys argue "did not meaningfully reduce the prison population." "Those decisions are central to plaintiffs' claims in the case, which allege that the Oregon Department of Corrections and the governor were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs and health and safety of people in prison during the pandemic," Nadia Dahab, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said late on June 7, 2023. Beckerman limited Brown's testimony to two hours, saying the amount of time in the class-action case "is not too much to ask of a former elected official. " According to an updated contract signed in March that OPB obtained through a public records request, the Oregon Department of Justice has agreed to pay the private law firm Markowitz Herbold up to $13.6 million to represent the state. The contract covers this case and 28 others, mostly cases in federal court, involving the Oregon Department of Corrections. [GN] ORLEANS PARISH: La. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Johnson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CLASS OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND ABC INSURANCE COMPANY CONSOLIDATED WITH: JOHN JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CLASS OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2022-CA-0639, Consolidated with No. 2022-CA-0700 (La. App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirms the district court's June 10, 2022 judgment granting the Appellees' motion for summary judgment. In this consolidated matter, the Appellants, the Housing Authority of New Orleans and the City of New Orleans, seek review of the district court's June 10, 2022 judgment, granting the Appellees' motion for summary judgment, who are 5002 class action claimants who resided, owned homes, and/or owned businesses and/or worked on the Agriculture Street Landfill site, and awarding them compensable damages for emotional distress and diminution of property value in the amount of $75,323,455.71. The instant appeal stems from a 30-year old class action regarding damages suffered by residents who lived on or adjacent to a former municipal landfill in New Orleans known as the Agriculture Street Landfill site (ASL) as well as business owners and their employees who owned businesses or worked on the ASL and students and employees of Moton School, which was located on the ASL. Four categories of claimants existed when the class was originally certified by the district court in 1999: 1) current and former residents of the ASL; 2) current and former business owners and their employees who operated businesses and worked on the ASL; 3) current residents who owned homes or who are buying homes but have not completed their payments on the ASL; and 4) former students and employees of the Moton Elementary School, who attended or worked at the school, which is located on the ASL. The instant appeal pertains to the grant of summary judgment on behalf of the first three categories of claimants, as the claims of the students and employees of the Moton School have already been resolved. In 2005, a bench trial was held on the common claims of the total class against the Appellants, four former HANO insurers and the Orleans Parish School Board ("OPSB"). The district court rendered judgment on Jan. 12, 2006, in favor of all the claimants, except those who attended and worked at the Moton School, and against the Appellees and HANO's insurers. On appeal of the 2006 judgment, the Court of Appeal reduced the emotional distress damages of the claimants by half but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. The Louisiana Supreme Court subsequently denied writs. Subsequently, in 2013, a bench trial was conducted for the first flight of 65 class members, who were not class representatives. While the remaining Plaintiffs were awarded damages for emotional distress in accordance with the methods established at the initial trial, the district court's awards for diminution of property value differed from those of the 2005 trial. The Appellees and HANO's insurers subsequently entered settlement negotiations. The Appellees moved for the appointment of a special master to oversee the settlement process. The district court appointed Paul R. Valteau, Jr., as special master. Subsequently, it appointed the accounting firm of Bourgeois, Bennett, LLC, to serve as the Court Appointed Disbursing Agent (CADA). Subsequently, on April 9, 2021, the Appellees filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of 5,002 confirmed eligible members of the John Johnson class, seeking to recover compensable damages for emotional distress and diminution of property value. Following a hearing on the Appellees' motion for summary judgment, the district court granted the Appellees' motion, rendering judgment on March 14, 2022. The Appellees were awarded $75,323,455.71 plus judicial interest against the Appellants. However, the Appellees filed a motion for new trial because the March 2022 judgment lacked the requisite decretal language. The motion was granted and the district court later rendered a June 10, 2022 judgment, granting the Appellees' motion, vacating the March 2022 judgment, and rendering judgment against the Appellants. The Appellants each appealed the June 10, 2022 judgment. Their appeals were later consolidated by the Court of Appeal. The Appellants raise the following assignments of error: 1) The district court erred and abused its discretion when it failed to allow adequate time for discovery and denied the Appellants' motion for continuance, which violated the Appellants' due process rights; 2) The district court erred in awarding damages for diminution of property value and emotional distress to 5,002 class action claimants via a motion for summary judgment because such motions: are not designed for class-wide claims resolution; deny the Appellants substantive and procedural due process; and there are remaining issues of determining causation and damages that need to be proven at trial; and 3) The Appellees did not meet their burden of proof of establishing that there were no genuinely disputed issues of material fact as numerous genuine issues of material fact remain. The Appellants assert that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to allow adequate time for discovery, denied their motion to continue, and prematurely granted the Appellees' motion for summary judgment. They assert they did not have a reason to take any depositions of CADA Li Downing, Special Master Valteau or appraiser Jimmie Thorns, Jr., review the POC forms, and/or review the appraisals of the Appellees' properties until the Appellees' filed their motion for summary judgment and the Appellants were properly served therewith. Lastly, they aver that they were not served with the motion for summary judgment and the memorandum in support of the motion until Oct. 13, 2021. The Appellees respond that the Appellants' assertion that they were unduly deprived of pre-hearing discovery is meritless. Additionally, they assert that as to service of the motion for summary judgment, the Appellants were served via U.S. Mail and e-mail on April 9, 2021, as stated in their Certificate of Service. They further aver the Appellants took no action to effectively prepare themselves to oppose the motion. The Court of Appeal finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that further discovery, a case that has been pending for three decades, was unwarranted. Aside from seeking a continuance and emailing counsel for the Appellees, it says the record does not reflect that the Appellants availed themselves of the procedures available to them under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure to depose Special Master Valteau and Ms. Downing. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal agrees with the Appellees that the Appellants had access to the POC forms and the claimants underlying documentation since the March 24, 2011 judgment was rendered. The March 24, 2011 district judgment prohibited the Appellees from producing an electronic copy of the database to the Appellants because the Appellants were ordered to pay their share for the creation of the claims database in order to receive their copy. Therefore, the first assignment of error is without merit. The Appellants then contend that summary judgment is procedurally improper and the Appellees are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because emotional distress damages cannot be determined on summary judgment. They further maintain that use of summary judgment procedure to resolve class wide claims is precluded by La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 592 (E)(5). In response, the Appellees assert that the precedent of the Louisiana Supreme Court as well as the precedent of this Court supports the method they employed to resolve the damage claims of the remaining class members. The Court of Appeal holds that the use of summary judgment was procedurally proper to resolve the claims of the remaining class members where liability of the Appellants had previously been determined as well as the damages due for emotional distress damages and diminution of property value. It similarly finds that res judicata applies. Finally, it does not find that the Appellants were denied due process in this matter because they had access to the notarized POC forms and supporting documentation for each claimant, pursuant to the March 24, 2011 judgment. Therefore, the Appellants had the opportunity to determine whether to challenge the recovery of any claimant they deemed ineligible; nevertheless, they seemingly failed to comply with said order to access these documents. Finally, the Appellants assert that in order for the Appellees to prevail on a motion for summary judgment for the 5002 class members, the Appellees had to establish that there were no genuinely disputed material facts and that the class members are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, for each element of the prima facie case as to each class member. According to the Court of Appeal, (i) the issue of whether a claimant presently owns property in the affected area is irrelevant and insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact; (ii) the Appellants fail to present any legal authority for the proposition that the district court or the Court is required to impose present day fair market values of the ASL and Adjacent Area properties; and (iii) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to disqualify Special Master Valteau and in considering the affidavit in support of the Appellee's Motion for summary judgment. For the foregoing reasons and pursuant to its de novo review, the Court of Appeal affirms the June 10, 2022 judgment of the district court, granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the Appellees, and awarding damages for emotional distress and diminution of property value in the amount of $75,323,455.71, against the Appellants. A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/fem7w4kv from Leagle.com. Linda Suzanna Harang, Law Offices of Warren A. Forstall, Jr., P.L.C., 320 N. Carrolton Ave, Suite 200, New Orleans, LA 70119-5111. Joseph M. Bruno, BRUNO & BRUNO LLP, 855 Baronne Street, New Orleans, LA 70113. George J. G. Roux, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 823 Saint Louis Street, New Orleans, LA 70112. Suzette P. Bagneris -- sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com -- THE BAGNERIS FIRM, LLC, 1929 Jackson Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70113. Stephen B. Murray -- smurray@murray-lawfirm.com -- MURRAY LAW FIRM, 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250, New Orleans, LA 70139. Roy J. Rodney, Esq., John Karl Etter, Esq., RODNEY & ETTER, LLC, 935 Gravier Street, New Orleans, LA 70112, COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT. Beverly A. DeLaune -- bdelaune@deutschkerrigan.com -- DEUTSCH KERRIGAN, LLP, 755 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130-3672. Kimlin S. Lee, Derek Michael Mercadal, Donesia D. Turner, Corwin M. St. Raymond, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 1300 Perdido Street, Room 5E03, New Orleans, LA 70112, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLEE. PETSMART LLC: Biometric Privacy Class Suit Settles for $424,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that PetSmart LLC will pay more than $424,000 to settle a proposed class action alleging it collected workers' voiceprints in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Steven Stegmann sued PetSmart, claiming that it required warehouse workers to use voice-recognition technology without obtaining their written consent for the collection of their voiceprints as required under BIPA. The company also failed to inform them of the purpose for the data collection or the length of time it would retain their information, or publish a policy disclosing its guidelines for destroying biometric information, he alleged. [GN] POKE FIDI: Must Oppose Yuwono Class Cert Bid by June 30 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yuwono v. Poke Fidi LLC et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-05052-JLR-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer E. Willis entered an order granting a four-week extension to the Defendants' deadline for filing its opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion for conditional collective certification to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions: -- The Defendants' Opposition is now due: June 30, 2023 -- The Plaintiff's deadline to submit a July 14, 2023 Reply is now: A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X3LskW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Martin R. West II, Esq. KENNEDYS LAW LLP 570 Lexington Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 625-4000 Facsimile: (212) 832-4920 POOLTOGETHER INC: Court Dismisses Kent's Illegal Lottery Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Macauley Peterson of Blockworks reports that a year and 7 months after it was filed, the case of Joseph Kent v. PoolTogether and its backers has been tossed by a Brooklyn federal court judge. The central question at issue -- whether the PoolTogether protocol constitutes an illegal lottery under New York law -- was not addressed, because the judge ruled that the plaintiff, Kent, lacked standing to sue. PoolTogether was started in 2019 by Leighton Cusack, Brendan Asselstine and Chuck Bergeron. Cusack was named as a defendant in the suit. He tweeted that he was "extremely happy" with the hearing, though his legal challenges are likely not over. "There is still a good chance they are going to try and refile this case (or an amended complaint) in state court" Cusack told Blockworks. Just over a year ago, PoolTogether's Cusack raised $1.5 million for a legal defense fund using NFTs purchased by over 4,200 unique wallets. Kent, who led a technology team for Sen. Elizabeth Warren's 2020 presidential bid, filed the complaint in October 2021, with clear political overtones. The original suit noted that he was "gravely concerned that the cryptocurrency ecosystem -- which requires the use of enormous amounts of electricity -- is accelerating climate change and allowing people to evade financial regulations and scam consumers." District Judge Frederic Block noted in his 16-page decision that Kent's lawsuit was based "on an entirely different premise," but one which could not be adjudicated on the merits, in the absence of any harm in fact. "By his own admission, he can withdraw his contributions at any time and the fees that those transactions would incur are not imposed by the defendants," the judge ruled. Quoting established precedent, Judge Block wrote that federal courts have "the power to redress harms that defendants cause plaintiffs, not a freewheeling power to hold defendants accountable for legal infractions." Kent deliberately used the protocol in an irrational manner by depositing a total of just $12 in GUSD and USDC stablecoins to PoolTogether's pool on Ethereum mainnet. It's well known that Ethereum has sometimes required high transaction fees, and these were readily apparent to Kent -- in fact, they formed part of the basis of his claim for harm. But PoolTogether also operates on Polygon and Avalanche -- and more recently Optimism -- where deposit fees are much lower. In all cases, transaction fees are the result of using the third-party networks where PoolTogether's decentralized app (dapp) is deployed and not paid to the protocol. As a no-loss lottery -- effectively a prize-linked savings account -- PoolTogether always offers participants a positive expected value. The protocol earns interest from other DeFi protocols such as Compound and conducts random prize drawings to pay out the pooled interest to lucky winners. Depositors can always withdraw 100% of their principal, however. Blockworks has reached out to Kent's attorneys. Judge Block concluded that the defendants, which include venture capital funds Dragonfly, Nascent and Galaxy Digital, did not cause Kent any injury. He was not entitled to any interest from his deposits to PoolTogether, even though he could have received interest for deposits made to Compound directly. "Crucially, the decision to deposit funds with PoolTogether or to send them directly to Compound (or, for that matter, to leave them in his digital wallet) belonged to Kent and Kent alone," Judge Block wrote. [GN] QUEBEC: Supreme Court Authorized Class Suit Over Damages -------------------------------------------------------- CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that on September 7, 2022, the Superior Court of Quebec authorized a class action for damages against the Government of Quebec (represented by the Attorney General of Quebec) and sixteen (16) integrated (university) health and social services centres (also known as IHSSC, IUHSSC, CISSS and CIUSSS). This class action concerns abuses which are alleged to have occurred in youth protection centres throughout the province of Quebec since 1950. A person is automatically a member of this class action if they meet all of the following criteria: They were born on or after October 2, 1932. They are not a member of a First Nation, an Inuit or a Metis. They were under 18 years old when they were placed in a centre as per a youth protection law. For the purposes of the class action, the centres notably include youth protection schools or youth protection centres, reception centres, transition centres and rehabilitation centres. Hospital centres, group homes and foster families are not concerned by the class action. Mont d'Youville reception centre is also excluded from the class action as it is already concerned by a separate, ongoing class action. Finally, a person who was placed in a centre following youth criminal justice proceedings is not a member of the class action. They did not receive financial assistance and sign a release pursuant to the National Program of Reconciliation with the Duplessis Orphans or the National Reconciliation Program for Duplessis Orphans Who Were Residents of Certain Institutions. However, in some circumstances (explained in the full-length notice to the class members), a person having signed such a release may still be a member of the class action. The Superior Court appointed Ms. Eleanor Lindsay as the representative of all class members. On their behalf, Ms. Lindsay claims that the Government of Quebec and the defendant centres are responsible for the systemic detention and abuse of children admitted into centres. She asks that the Superior Court order the Government of Quebec and the defendant centres to pay damages to the class members, including herself. Those allegations and the defendants' purported liability remain to be proven. In the coming years, unless the parties enter a settlement, the Superior Court will therefore be required to decide, following a trial, whether the defendants were at fault and whether and to what extent damages should be paid to the class members. If they do not want to be included in the class action and to obtain a payment if the class action is settled or granted by the court, class members may opt out of the class action at the latest on July 9, 2023, at 4:30PM. The means of opting out are specified in the full-length notice to the class members. All class members who will not have opted out prior to the expiry of this deadline will be bound by any judgment rendered in the class action. For additional information about the class action, please consult the full-length notice to the class members available at the following address: https://www.registredesactionscollectives.quebec/fr/Consulter/Apercu Demande?NoDossier=500-06-001022-199 Counsel for Ms. Eleanor Lindsay and all class members, identified below, may also be contacted by the following means: E-mail : ELCA@alexeevco.com Phone : 514 545-7080 Fax : 514 648-7700 Mtre. Lev Alexeev Mtre. Elise Veillette Alexeev Attorneys Inc. 2000 McGill College Avenue, suite 600 Montréal, Québec, H3A 3H3 Mtre. Jean-Philippe Groleau Mtre. Julie Girard Mtre. Joseph-Anael Lemieux Mtre. Guillaume Charlebois Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg s.e.n.c.r.l., s.r.l. 1501 McGill College Avenue, 26th Floor Montréal, Québec, H3A 3N9 Another notice to the class members will be published if any settlement is entered into by the parties or once a final judgment is rendered on the class action. THE PUBLICATION OF THIS PRESS RELEASE HAS BEEN ORDERED BY THE COURT. [GN] RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs' Bid for Reconsideration Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARAH KYE BOROZNY, ANTHONY DeGENNARO, RYAN GLOGOWSKI, ELLEN McISAAC, SCOTT PRENTISS, ALEX SCALES, AUSTIN WAID-JONES, NICHOLAS WILSON, and STEVEN ZAPPULLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION; AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC.; BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC; CYIENT, INC.; PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; and QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01657-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and the Defendants' motion to strike. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs need not prove the Defendants' market power in their per se claim, however, does not alleviate the Plaintiffs from having to adequately describe the relevant market they claim was allocated by the Defendants. The Court is unconvinced by the Plaintiffs' contention that, essentially, Bogan does not, or should not, mean what it says. In Bogan, the plaintiffs brought a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act seeking to recover for damages allegedly caused by the defendants' agreement to restrain the ability of certain insurance employees to transition from one employer to another." Raytheon Technologies is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N5drMO at no extra charge.[CC] RESURGENT CAPITAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss in Williams Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Timothy M. Cain of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled Eve Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Resurgent Capital Services LP and LVNV Funding LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-3731-TMC (D.S.C.). Plaintiff Eve Williams, represented by counsel, brings this purported class action against Defendants Resurgent Capital Services LP and LVNV Funding LLC asserting three claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On Nov. 18, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or compel arbitration. Williams filed her response in opposition to the Defendants' motion on Dec. 23, 2022, and the Defendants replied. Thereafter, Judge Cain referred the motion to the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B). On May 5, 2023, the magistrate judge entered his Report, recommending the Court grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss. All parties are represented by counsel and are, therefore, presumed to be on notice of their right to file specific objections to the Report. Moreover, the Report itself advised the parties of their right to file specific objections within 14 days. However, to date, no objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now expired. Accordingly, the matter is ripe for review. Judge Cain notes that the magistrate judge's recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, it is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Thus, having reviewed the Report and the record and, finding no clear error, the Court agrees with, and wholly adopts, the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in the Report, which is incorporated here by reference. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). To the extent the Defendants' motion also seeks to compel arbitration, the motion is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 1, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycf77k4h from Leagle.com. RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL: Appellate Court Reverses $1.7M Fee Award ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel of Reuters reports that class action plaintiffs' lawyers are now officially on notice: If you are litigating in the 9th U.S. Circuit, you'd better not expect to be paid more in fees than your clients took home. No matter how much time and effort class counsel sink into the litigation - and no matter the size of the theoretical fund from which class payouts can be made - trial courts must begin their fee analysis by focusing on how much money class members actually received in the settlement, the 9th Circuit ruled on June 7, 2023 in Lowery v. Rhapsody International, Inc. In almost all cases, the appeals court said, the payout to class members should serve as a ceiling for attorneys' fees, even if the fees are being paid by defendants instead of class members. "Except in extraordinary cases, a fee award should not exceed the value that the litigation provided to the class," wrote Judge Kenneth Lee for a panel that also included Judges Milan Smith and Daniel Collins. "Any other approach would allow parties to concoct a high phantom settlement cap to justify excessive fees, even though class members receive nothing close to that amount. District courts have the responsibility to guard against such an outcome." The appeals court reversed a $1.7 million fee award to Michelman & Robinson in a class action brought by songwriters who accused music streaming service Rhapsody (which now goes by the name Napster of infringing their copyrights by distributing songs without a license. The trial judge, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of Oakland, had based that award on class counsel's lodestar billings of $1.7 million, as well as Rhapsody's commitment to make as much as $20 million available to pay class members' claims. But the 9th Circuit said neither of those was the crucial number in the inquiry. The important dollar figure, the appeals court said, $52,841.05 - the "measly" amount that class members actually claimed from the Napster settlement. A fee award that gives lawyers 17 times as much money as the entire sum recovered by their clients, the 9th Circuit said, would "likely make the average person shake her head in disbelief." There are particular reasons why the class claims were so inconsequential, as I'll explain. Michelman, moreover, argued in its appellate brief that when Congress has authorized fee-shifting, as it did for successful copyright infringement lawsuits, policy considerations can justify a big fee award. The 9th Circuit nevertheless said unequivocally that the primary consideration in fee awards is class members' recovery. "The touchstone for determining the reasonableness of attorney's fees in a class action is the benefit to the class," Lee wrote. "It matters little that the plaintiffs' counsel may have poured their blood, sweat and tears into a case if they end up merely spinning wheels on behalf of the class. What matters most is the result for the class members." Michelman & Robinson said in an email statement that the 9th Circuit decision "does not appropriately acknowledge the benefits to the class and does not comport with prior authority." The firm said its class action helped prod Rhapsody to pay requisite licensing fees to artists (albeit through a settlement with a music publishers trade group) and to create an internal advisory board of artists. "This lawsuit contributed to these significant changes and resulted in a settlement providing up to $20 million to eligible class members," the statement said. "We are considering our options." Napster counsel Karin Kramer of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan said by email that most class action lawyers already recognize that their fees should be tethered to their clients' recovery, so the new ruling does not much shift the status quo. "If the court had gone the other way and allowed counsel here to obtain fees 30x what the class obtained, the landscape for fees would have changed dramatically and the needs of class members would have been subordinated to the quest for fees," Kramer said. "Thankfully that did not happen." But class action plaintiffs' lawyer Jay Edelson, who has long advocated for class counsel fees to be tied directly to class payouts, said on Twitter that the 9th Circuit ruling is "the most consequential decision on class action settlements in over a decade." Edelson hailed the appeals court for refusing to give any weight to the $20 million "fund" that Napster made available for class claims. The 9th Circuit specifically instructed White to "disregard the illusory $20 million settlement cap" when he recalculates fees on remand - a recognition, Edelson said, that the theoretical fund did not transform the settlement into a $20 million win for class, since the agreement in fact committed Napster only to pay out the amount class members claimed, not the entire $20 million. So why did so few class members make claims? There is no question that at the time Michelman & Robinson filed the class action in 2016, the class was potentially vast. Streamers like Napster (then Rhapsody) couldn't keep up with then-operative licensing requirements. But Napster, according to its appellate brief, was already in talks with the National Music Publishers Association on an industry-wide settlement of copyright claims. By the time class counsel finalized a 2019 settlement in the Lowery case, almost all of the prospective class members had resolved their potential claims through Napster's deal with the trade group. And Congress, moreover, had obviated any need for injunctive relief by revising music copyright and licensing laws. In other words, despite devoting more than 3,500 hours to the case over the course of three years of sporadic litigation and settlement negotiation, all Michelman & Robinson had to show as a result was about $53,000 in payouts to class members and a promise from Napster to establish a board of musical artists to advise the streamer on promoting artists' interests. Under the 9th Circuit's new ruling, that's not nearly enough to justify a $1.7 million fee. [GN] ROMAN CATHOLIC: Class Suit Over Sexual Abuse Reaches Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Darren MacDonald of CTVNorthernOntario.ca reports that a $100 million class action lawsuit launched on behalf of alleged victims of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy on Manitoulin Island has been abandoned after the victims reached individual settlements with the church. All of the 29 alleged victims are from Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory and attended Holy Cross Mission, run by the Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada. The suit was launched in 2015 and named several defendants, including the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Sault Ste. Marie, the Estate of Father George Epoch and the Estate of Brother O'Meare. "The action was brought on behalf of all persons who were abused as children by clergy or staff of the Holy Cross Mission in Wiikwemkoong (and) all parents, spouses, children and siblings of the abused persons," court documents said. Two alleged victims - one of Father George Epoch and the other of Brother O'Meare - filed the suit and were joined by others. O'Meare committed the sex abuse when he worked in Wiikwemkoong between 1950 and 1960, while Epoch's crimes took place when he worked there from 1959 to 1963, 1969 to 1971 and 1983 to 1986 the suit alleges. A third member of the clergy - a "Brother Hinton" - was also named as someone who abused children from 1963 until 1970. His whereabouts - and whether he is still alive - is unknown, the court documents said. Four years after the class action was launched, officials approached lawyers for the Jesuits. "Chief Duke Peltier and senior policy analyst Sandra Wabegijig of the Wiikwemkoong Unceded First Nation approached the counsel for the Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada and asked that the legal process be resolved by an informal process," the court documents said. The goal was to find a process that would still be fair but wouldn't "re-traumatize" the alleged victims. "Discussions followed with the Merchant Law Group with the leaders of the Wiikwemkoong community, and a consensus emerged that there should be a more informal process," the transcript said. "It was agreed that compensation would be negotiated in accordance with the awards made in the federal Day School Settlement, which was a class action similar to the Indian Residential Schools Class Action." All 29 people have since settled their claims, but "the terms of the individual settlements were not disclosed to this court," the transcript said. "The counsel fee or costs awards were not disclosed to this court." Download our app to get local alerts on your device Get the latest local updates sent right to your inbox However, the class action suit was still technically ongoing and lawyers for the alleged victims had to get court approval to end it. In his ruling, the judge in the case said it was frustrating not to know the details of the individual settlements. That information would help him ensure the alleged victims are not giving up any rights by ending the class action suit. "It may be that the negotiated settlements and the fees are reasonable and in the best interests of the putative class members who settled, but I cannot conclude that based on the information proffered on this discontinuance motion," he wrote. However, considering none of the plaintiffs in the case are pursuing legal action at this point, the judge ruled it would be "futile." "There are no representative plaintiffs willing to represent the putative class members who have not settled, and, in any event, the defendants could have the proposed class action mandatorily dismissed for delay," the judge wrote. In agreeing to discontinue the suit, the judge said that all members of the lawsuit should be sent a copy of his ruling. If they have questions, they should get independent legal advice. Resources for sexual assault survivors in Canada If you or someone you know is struggling with sexual assault or trauma, the following resources are available to support people in crisis: If you are in immediate danger or fear for your safety, you should call 911. A full list of sexual assault centres in Canada that offer information, advocacy and counselling can be found at ReeseCommunity.com. Resources in your community can be found by entering your postal code. Helplines, legal services and locations that offer sexual assault kits in Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia can be found here. National Residential School Crisis Line: +1 866 925 4419 24-hour crisis line: 416 597 8808 Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline: +1 833 900 1010 Trans Lifeline: +1 877 330 6366 Sexual misconduct support for current or former members of the Armed Forces: +1 844 750 1648 [GN] RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Settles Birmingham Pension Fund Suit for $5-M --------------------------------------------------------------- Corporate.ryanair.com reports that Ryanair Holdings Plc on June 7, 2023 confirmed that the US Class Action launched by the City of Birmingham Pension Fund in Nov 2018, has been settled following recent mediation between the parties. This settlement came after the US District Court in 2020 dismissed many of the claims made by the plaintiff, considerably narrowing the grounds for action. A spokesperson for Ryanair welcomed this settlement. The total settlement amount is $5m, which is considerably less than the legal costs that would have been incurred had this action gone all the way to trial. Ryanair contends there was no lawful basis for this claim, but that the settlement is in the interest of all shareholders due to the very modest settlement amount. The final settlement agreement will be subject to approval by the Court. [GN] S1 SECURITY: Faces Prieto Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- HUGO PRIETO, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. S1 SECURITY GROUP INC., and ROLANDO E. PALMA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22015-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2023) is an action to recover monetary damages for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Prieto was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly security employee from approximately May 1, 2021, to November 26, 2022, or 82 weeks. S1 Security is a Florida corporation that provides security services to businesses, residential communities, construction sites, retailers, and related security services such as executive bodyguard protection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Kaplan of The Athletic reports that the San Francisco 49ers agreed to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from a February 2022 ransomware attack on the team's data servers that exposed personal information of over 20,000 employees, officials and fans. The plaintiffs filed settlement papers on June 8, 2023 in California federal court. The proposed settlement, which covers 20,930 individuals, requires the team to create a new position -- executive vice president of technology -- to oversee IT operations, and hire a dedicated cyber-security IT professional. What’s in the deal Class members are entitled to recoup up to $2,000 for ordinary expenses involved in addressing the breach of their data. Those with "documented extraordinary expenses" such as identity theft are eligible for up to $7,500. All can receive two years of identity protection services -- worth an estimated $5.65 million just for that service. California residents are eligible for an $85 cash payment. The four law firms handling the case would get $170,000 in attorney fees total. [GN] SCENIC LUXURY: Settles Suit Over Extreme River Levels, Flooding --------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Hutcheon of Seatrade Cruise News reports that the settlement in a class action against Scenic Luxury Cruises & Tours led by North Sydney law firm Somerville Legal has the company paying A$23m in damages to 1,200 passengers. Scenic is also to pay A$3m towards the legal costs of the plaintiffs who claimed distress and disappointment damages. River flooding in 2013 The class action followed extreme river levels and flooding in April and May 2013 which prevented river cruise vessels from safely navigating the Rhine and Danube. Scenic is also to pay A$3m towards the legal costs of the plaintiffs who claimed distress and disappointment damages. River flooding in 2013 The class action followed extreme river levels and flooding in April and May 2013 which prevented river cruise vessels from safely navigating the Rhine and Danube. Scenic did not cancel its cruises between Amsterdam and Budapest, but instead berthed in industrial ports and operated lengthy bus journeys. Somerville Legal’s MD Ben Hemsworth said Scenic fought the case every step of the way and the class action group is to be congratulated for staying the course. Scenic 'disappointed' Scenic Group issued a statement that said it is disappointed, after almost 10 years of litigation, with the final judgement, but the outcome 'is in line with our financial provisioning, given the previous court decisions and subsequent appeals.' 'We are pleased that this matter has finally been settled and can confirm that Scenic Group is committed to delivering scheduled itineraries, without compromising on the guest's safety or the services we provide,' the statement said. 'Whilst the prospect of schedule interruptions is unpredictable, we take nothing for granted and continue to invest in our River Cruise Cover and itineraries for the benefit of our guests.' [GN] SHERMAN COUNSELING: Mittelsteadt Sues Over Counselors' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA MITTELSTEADT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHERMAN COUNSELING MANAGEMENT, S.C. and REFRESH MENTAL HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-668 (E.D. Wis., May 31, 2023) is a collective and class action brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, agreed-upon wages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and/or injunctive relief. According to the complaint, the Defendants operated an unlawful compensation system by: (1) misclassifying Plaintiff and all other similarly situated as salaried- exempt when, in reality, said employees did not receive a pre-determined salary each workweek, were compensated based on hours worked and/or work performed each workday and each workweek, and, thus, were non-exempt employees to whom Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek; and (2) failing to compensate Plaintiff and all other similarly situated with agreed-upon pay of 50% of monthly billables on at least a monthly basis. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a licensed professional counselor in September 2011. Sherman Counseling Management, S.C. provides medical services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com SHOPIFY INC: Faces $130-M Class Suit Over Severance Pay Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Charlize Alcaraz of BetaKit reports that Shopify is facing a $130-million class action lawsuit for allegedly breaching severance pay contracts with recently laid-off employees. The Canadian retail tech giant has had several mass-termination events since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this lawsuit filed with the Ontario Superior Court deals with the most recent layoffs in May, which involved Shopify eliminating 20 percent of its global workforce and selling its logistics business to Flexport. BetaKit has reached out to Shopify for comment. No judgment on the allegations has yet been made in court. According to Samfiru Tumarkin LLP, the law firm leading the case, Shopify offered severance to approximately 2,000 employees, which would have cost about $150 million. When the layoffs were initially announced, Shopify said that those who are impacted will receive a minimum of 16 weeks of severance pay, plus a week for every year of tenure at the company. However, the lawsuit alleges that after people accepted those offers, Shopify did not comply with the agreed-upon terms, with severance amounts reduced by "tens of thousands of dollars." Samfiru Tumarkin LLP noted it is rare for employers to go back on termination offers for their former employees, and that legally, what Shopify is alleged to have done would constitute a breach of contract. Plaintiff Iain Russell, for example, who worked for Shopify for seven years, said he was initially offered more than $88,000. After Russell accepted the package, the Canadian Press reported that Shopify put forward an agreement worth approximately $44,000 in its place, slashing the severance offer by half of its initial amount. Lior Samfiru, a lawyer involved in the class action, told the Canadian Press that workers received a "vague statement about miscalculating" the severance by way of explanation. "For many people . . . the difference is significant," Samfiru said, noting differences could range between $10,000 to $60,000. "It appears that Shopify took deliberate action to minimize its financial liability, resulting in considerable losses for potentially thousands of people," he added. As a downturn continues to sweep the tech sector, an increasing number of companies are being subject to legal proceedings as a result of the way they allegedly handled layoffs. Over 1,300 individual arbitration cases have been filed against Twitter for similar allegations of breaching severance-pay contracts. The former workers, who were laid off shortly after the Elon Musk takeover in October, said they were promised more compensation than what was finally offered to them in January. Twitter could face north of $130 million USD in costs to settle the cases that have been filed thus far, Business Insider reported. [GN] SOUTH AFRICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Cholera Outbreak ----------------------------------------------------------- Rapula Moatshe of IOL reports that the deceased's relatives gathered at Shammah Urban Church in the township, where they met with legal representatives who expressed the intention to institute a medical lawsuit against the implicated spheres of government and departments. One of their legal representatives, advocate Moafrika Wa Maila, said he was part of at least 12 lawyers ready to take up a legal fight on behalf of the bereaved families in a bid to get compensation from the government. One of the grieving families from Kanana said that their daughter Johanna Phengwa was survived by her four children and would like the government to assume the responsibilities of taking care of them because their mother was a breadwinner. Three of the children were still attending school while the elder one who was 25 years old was unemployed, according to a relative Eva Phengwa. Phengwa said that the plight of the children was worsened by the fact that their child social grants were recently terminated without explanation. "Things are very difficult for us. We need the government to come to our rescue," she said. She said she was still heartbroken because of her late sister's death. "She used to be a pillar of strength. She died at home after complaining of a running stomach and vomiting." According to her, the deceased was taken for treatment at a local clinic where she was put on a drip. "Her condition never improved; she continued to have a running stomach until she died on May 19 in the morning," she said. She said the government only came to donate food parcels to the family and after the funeral only social workers came over to see them. Another family wanting compensation was that of the late Nthabiseng Legwabe, who died at home on May 17 after suffering severe diarrhoea and vomiting. Her sister Jackie Matlatle said the deceased was survived by her two sons who both have mental illness. "One of the children is 22 while the other is 18. Presently there is no one to take care of them. I had to take them under my roof and it has been difficult for me. They sometimes go out until night and it is not safe for them given their mental conditions. It is difficult for me because most of the time I have to go looking for them," she said. Matlatle said that she would welcome any help for children, including an offer to be accommodated at an orphanage home. "She had a running stomach and was vomiting. She also didn't have an appetite. Unfortunately, she couldn't go to the hospital; she died at home," she said. Local pastor Bishop Phillip Mogwera said: "We, as the community, are crying, and we request the government never to pass the buck. I have been listening to them, even the guys debating on TV, they passed the buck." Mogwera said that the water problem started long before "we thought the DA could appear anywhere". "I have been in Hammanskraal for 20 years but for 15 years I have not been drinking tap water from here. It didn't start now. " "So, we are requesting our national government not just to give verbal comfort. We are saying let us have a lasting solution so that our people can live in Hammanskraal," he said. He also expressed support for the class action move, saying it was good "because if it is not done some families will get compensation and others won't". "But if everybody is part of it, they will share whatever amount is paid to them. And if it didn't work it didn't work for everybody," he said. As of June 9, 2023, there were 32 deaths reported countrywide since the cholera outbreak and the majority of them were from Hammanskraal. Wa Maila last week told the Pretoria News that he would institute a legal class action against the government on behalf of the deceased, those admitted to hospital and other affected residents. Many people in the township were admitted at Jubilee District Hospital after they fell ill with a diarrhoeal disease or gastrointestinal infection said to be caused by consumption of contaminated water. The government subsequently declared that there was a cholera outbreak in the area. During a media briefing on June 9, 2023, Tshwane mayor Cilliers Brink said: "People affected by this must follow their rights. They must get independent legal advice and see if a court of law should adjudicate this matter. As the city we wouldn't like to dictate to folks how to treat the matter." He also said that it would be crucial for those behind the class action "to establish causality" and find out where the problem came from and somebody responsible for it. [GN] SPRUCE POWER HOLDING: Securities Suit Filed in DE Court Over Merger ------------------------------------------------------------------- Spruce Power Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2023, that on September 20, 2021, and October 19, 2021, two class action complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain of the company's current officers and directors, and the company's SPAC sponsor, Pivotal Investment Holdings II LLC. The actions were consolidated as "In re XL Fleet (Pivotal) Stockholder Litigation," C.A. No. 2121-0808, and an amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2022. The amended complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, for purported actions relating to the negotiation and approval of the December 21, 2020 merger and organization of legacy XL Hybrids Inc. to become XL Fleet Corp., and purportedly materially misleading statements made in connection with the merger. Spruce Power is an operator of distributed solar energy assets based in Colorado SPRUCE POWER HOLDING: Securities Suits Consolidated in NY Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Spruce Power Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2023, that on March 8, 2021, two putative securities class action complaints were filed in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Those cases were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed in June 2021, and an amended complaint was filed on July 20, 2021, alleging that certain public statements made by the defendants between October 2, 2020, and March 2, 2021, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Spruce Power is an operator of distributed solar energy assets based in Colorado. ST. DOMINIC: Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed in Boswell Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ST. DOMINIC HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED, et al. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the lawsuit entitled Glenda Boswell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. St. Dominic Health Services, Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00151, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned In re: St. Dominic Health Services, Case No. 23-60288, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on June 1, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent GLENDA BOSWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Andrew Rueff, Esq. HAGWOOD ADELMAN TIPTON, PC 4735 Old Canton Road Jackson, MS 39211 Telephone: (601) 366-4343 Defendants-Petitioners ST. DOMINIC HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED, et al., are represented by: Eve Barrie Masinter, Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 909 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 584-5468 STANDARD BIOTOOLS: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Biotools Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2023, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action complaint against the company alleging violations of federal securities laws. Said case, which also named its Chief Financial Officer and its former Chief Executive Officer as defendants, (also naming its Chief Financial Officer and its former Chief Executive Officer as defendants was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under "Reena Saintjermain, et al. v. Fluidigm Corporation, et al." IUn February 14, 2022, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. On March 15, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's decision. Standard Biotools Inc. is an analytical laboratory instrument manufacturing company based in California. STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Suit Over Illegal Personal Info Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Rosenblatt of Seattle Times reports that two Seattle giants -- Amazon and Starbucks -- have been accused of collecting customers' personal information without first notifying them, in a lawsuit filed on June 7, 2023 in Seattle. The proposed class-action lawsuit alleges Amazon and Starbucks have violated a New York City law that requires companies to post signage near store entrances if the businesses are collecting customers' biometric data, like fingerprints, handprints or the shape of a person's body. Amazon and Starbucks teamed up to open two contactless checkout coffee shops in the city during the past three years. The stores feature Amazon's Just Walk Out technology, which uses machine learning paired with a network of sensors and cameras to track what customers pick up and charge them when they walk out, skipping the checkout line. [GN] TESLA INC: Black Automobile Workers Sue Over Racial Abuse --------------------------------------------------------- Deon Osborne of The Black Wall Street Times reports that seeking to push forward a class-action lawsuit against Tesla, 240 Black workers at the electric car company's San Francisco Bay Area plant say they face an environment of rampant racism with no accountability. The accusations include racial slurs from other workers, racist graffiti and supervisors who allegedly compared the plant to a slave plantation. Tesla CEO Elon Musk continues to court far-right extremist views and media pundits like former Fox News host and white nationalist Tucker Carlson. Meanwhile, hundreds of Black Tesla workers are sounding the alarm on racism they face at a company owned and operated by a man whose family gained wealth in apartheid South Africa. Filed in Alameda County Superior Court on June 5, 2023, workers and contractors working on the production floor of the Fremont plant, roughly 40 miles from San Francisco, estimate the lawsuit could involve up to 6,000 workers. Notably, Black Americans have always been influential to the growth of innovations in the automobile industry long before Elon Musk bought his way into Tesla. Automatic gear shift inventor Richard Spikes, modern-day traffic light inventor Garret Morgan, and early car company owners C.R. Patterson and his sons represent early Black pioneers who helped revolutionize the industry. Decades later, Black automobile workers at Tesla face rampant racial abuse under the leadership of the second richest man in the world, Elon Musk. Does Tesla allow a culture of runaway racism? The testimonies of racist abuse stem from a 2017 lawsuit brought by former Tesla contractor Marcus Vaughn, whose complaints of racial slurs allegedly went ignored. Supervisors refused to conduct an investigation, and Vaughn was fired due to not keeping a "positive attitude," according to his lawyer. Yet the most recent lawsuit is just the tip of the iceberg. Last year California regulators sued Tesla, accusing the company of ignoring complaints and claiming Musk told workers to be "thick-skinned" about racial abuse. In April a jury awarded former Tesla worker Owen Diaz $3.2 million for racial abuse he suffered at the company, a significant drop from the $137 million he was initially awarded. As Elon Musk appears more concerned with making fun of trans people and "liberal indoctrination" it's unclear how much longer he can ignore the mounting legal battle against his company. [GN] TEXAS HEALTH: Langhan Files Bid to Certify Class of Female Nurses ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN LANGHAM, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. TEXAS HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, Case No. 6:22-cv-00057-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for collective and class certification and approving notices be sent out to potential class members defined as: "All female Nurse III – Nurse Surveyors employed by Health and Human Services within the in the Patient Quality Care Unit, Regulatory Division since January 6, 2019, until present." Additionally, Ms. Langham is aware of the claims at issue in her case and the bases for them, sought out legal representation for these specific claims and has been an active advocate for herself and an advocate within this litigation. Further, other potential class members have expressed support for Ms. Langham's lawsuit regarding these issues. On January 6, 2022, Ms. Langham, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, filed a hybrid collective/class action in state court. Texas Health manages programs that help families with food, health care, safety, and disaster services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X7lMnI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colin Walsh, Esq. Jairo Castellanos, Esq. WILEY WALSH, P.C. 1011 San Jacinto Blvd., Ste 401 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 27-5527 Facsimile: (512) 201-1263 E-mail: colin@wileywalsh.com - and - Paige E. Melendez, Esq. Harjeen Zibari, Esq. ROB WILEY, P.C. 2613 Thomas Ave. Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 528-6500 Facsimile: (214) 528-6511 E-mail: pmelendez@robwiley.com hzibari@robwiley.com TRADEMARK DOUGLAS: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- Gerardo Morales, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Trademark Douglas, LLC d/b/a Trademark Roofing, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00390 (M.D. Fla., May 31, 2023) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Morales was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted, full-time roof installer from approximately February 9, 2023, to April 9, 2023, or 9 weeks. Trademark Douglas is a roofing company providing commercial and residential roof installation, maintenance, and repair services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Nov. 2 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask Court to enter an order as follows: -- Last day for defendant to file opposition July 27, 2023 to motion for class certification: -- Last day for the Plaintiff to file reply Aug. 10, 2023 in support of motion for class certification: -- Hearing on motion for class certification November 2, 2023 (or any other date available Thursday on the Court’s calendar before October 19, 2023 or after October 26, 2023): Transamerica Premier is a life insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42y02Cw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8400 NE 124th Street, Kansas City, MO 64167 Telephone: (816) 509-0170 - and - Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway UNIT 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 The Defendant is represented by: Larry M. Golub, Esq. SACRO & WALKER LLP 700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 610 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 721-9597 Facsimile: (818) 721-9670 E-mail: lgolub@sacrowalker.com - and - Vivian I. Orlando, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 596-450 E-mail: VOrlando@maynardcooper.com.com TYSON FOODS: Bid to Flip Denial of Appointment in Guo Suit Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denies an application to reverse the denial of appointment to be lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MINGXUE GUO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TYSON FOODS, INC., NOEL WHITE, DEAN BANKS and STEWART GLENDINNING, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-552 (AMD) (JRC) (E.D.N.Y.). On Sept. 30, 2022, Magistrate Judge James Cho denied Chen Porat and Keagan Marcus's (the Movants) motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs in this putative securities action. Before the Court is the Movants' application to reverse Judge Cho's decision. Judge Cho denied the Movants' motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs because their combined losses--$323.20--gave them inadequate incentive to supervise the class action meaningfully and oversee class counsel. The Movants claim that this decision was "clear error." The Defendants maintain that that while the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") identifies no specific minimum loss requirements, courts have denied lead plaintiff motions where the stated losses were insufficient to incentivize the moving parties. The Movants reply that the defendants do not have standing to oppose a lead plaintiff motion, that none of the Defendants' arguments and innuendo amount to the exacting proof required to show Porat and Marcus are inadequate or atypical, and that Magistrate Cho's order creates an unworkable rule and effectively eliminates small class actions by requiring lead plaintiffs to have a large loss." On Dec. 2, 2022, the Defendants submitted a Notice of Supplemental Authority, citing McCormack v. Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd., No. 22-CV-7273, 2022 WL 17336586 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2022), where the court denied a lead plaintiff motion on behalf of an applicant, who claimed $504.40 in losses. On April 28, 2023, the Movants filed a notice of supplemental authority in response, citing Olsson v. PDLT Inc., et al., No. 23-CV-885, Dkt. No. 24 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2023). The court in Olsson granted the lead plaintiff motion of an investor, who alleged losses of $240.23. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the movants' alleged financial loss was insufficient, holding that courts routinely appoint lead plaintiffs with financial interests substantially similar to or less than the movant. The Movants assert that "small losses standing alone" cannot "preclude a prima facie showing of adequacy" under the PSLRA and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In other words, the Movants say a court should grant an unopposed lead plaintiff motion regardless of the size of the alleged loss (assuming all other statutory requirements are met). Judge Donnelly opines that this argument is unconvincing: a proposed lead plaintiff whose application is unopposed is not automatically entitled to appointment. Judge Cho found that that the Movants satisfied the second prong of the PSLRA's rebuttable presumption, because neither side has identified any class members with a larger financial interest than Porat and Marcus. However, because the PSLRA aims to avoid lawyer-driven litigation, the statute expressly requires that the lead plaintiff satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. And, although the PSLRA identifies no specific minimum loss requirement, courts have broad discretion under Rule 23 to determine the adequacy of a proposed lead plaintiff. Only two of the prerequisites to Rule 23 class certification--typicality and adequacy--are relevant to the selection of lead plaintiff, Judge Donnelly notes. Judge Cho found that the Movants satisfied typicality because they both alleged that they purchased shares of Tyson stock within the Class Period in reliance on the allegedly false and misleading statements. He found, however, that they were not adequate lead plaintiffs because their combined alleged losses were insufficient. The Movants assert that the decision creates an "unworkable" rule that "effectively eliminates 'small' securities class actions," and establishes "a requirement that does not exist in the PSLRA, Rule 23 or caselaw." Judge Donnelly finds that Judge Cho's decision is not "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." Rather, it is robust, comprehensive, and adheres to the rigorous procedures set forth by the PSLRA. As Judge Cho also noted, other courts have denied lead plaintiff status on similar facts. Finally, Judge Donnelly says, aggrieved investors may still pursue their claims on an individual basis. In short, Judge Donnelly finds no error in Judge Cho's well-reasoned determination that the Movants have an insufficient interest in the litigation to "pursue the class claims vigorously" and represent the interests of the class members adequately. Accordingly, the Movants' application is denied. For these reasons, the Movants' request that the Court reverse Judge Cho's order is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated June 1, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5eev8r6w from Leagle.com. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Allowed to File Supplement in Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez et al v. University of San Diego (USD), Case No. 3:20-cv-01946-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns entered an order: 1) granting ex parte motion to supplement briefing on motion for class certification, and 2) continuing hearing and setting briefing schedule. On May 25, 2023, USD filed an ex parte motion to supplement briefing in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. USD contends that Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo's May 23, 2023 Order striking the Plaintiffs' third expert report and granting USD's motion for sanctions contains factual and legal findings that bear directly on whether the Plaintiffs can establish adequacy of representation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). University of San Diego is a private Roman Catholic research university. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43IEm87 at no extra charge.[CC] URS MIDWEST: Parties Seek Decision on Pending Bid for Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), v. URS MIDWEST, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-02365-JWH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Parties jointly request a decision by the Court on the Plaintiff's pending Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Local Rule 83-9.2, and state as follows: On April 29, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants responded on July 21, and the Plaintiff replied on November 17. On December 16, the Defendants filed a Sur-Reply after the Court granted them leave to do so. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on January 18, 2023, and entered an order taking the matter under submission on the same date. Accordingly, the Motion was deemed submitted on January 18, 2023 -- the date the Court announced on the record, following the conclusion of the hearing on the Motion, that the matter was submitted for decision. See L.R. 83-9.1(a)(i). Urs Midwest was founded in 1998. The company's line of business includes the arranging of transportation of freight and cargo. A copy of the Court's order dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nv8kXK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Orlando Villalba, Esq. Helga Hakimi, Esq. Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com Helga.Hakimi@capstonelawyers.com Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq. Jared S. Kramer, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 Facsimile: (317) 687-2414 E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com jskramer@scopelitis.com WAL-MART STORES: Zanetich Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- ERICK ZANETICH is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Erick Zanetich, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores East Inc., doing business as Walmart Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1-22-cv-05387, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated who have suffered damages. Specifically, as stated in the complaint: "Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who, since on or after February 22, 2021: (1) were denied employment by the Defendants in the state of New Jersey because he or she tested positive for marijuana in pre-employment drug screen; and/or (2) were subject to any other adverse employment action because he or she tested positive for marijuana." In Count II of the complaint, the Plaintiff raises a cause of action against the Defendants for failure to hire/wrongful discharge in violation of New Jersey public policy. On Oct. 7, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Christine P. O'Hearn on May 25, 2023. The Court dismissed the complaint saying there is no implied private cause of action in the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), and the common law does not provide for a cause of action under Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation based on an employer's failure to hire. The appellate case is captioned Erick Zanetich v. Wal-Mart Stores East Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1996, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May 31, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ERICK ZANETICH, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, is represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Defendants-Appellees WAL-MART STORES EAST INC., doing business as Walmart Inc., et al., are represented by: Tracey E. Diamond, Esq. Leigh H. McMonigle, Esq. Christopher J. Moran, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 981-4869 (215) 981-4627 (215) 981-4169 - and - Misha Tseytlin, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 759-5947 WALT DISNEY: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENALE NIELSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., a Florida Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-02055-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant requests that the Court grant leave to file under seal WDPR's Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and certain exhibits submitted in support of the Opposition. Walt Disney was founded in 1964. The Company's line of business includes the operating of amusement parks and kids parks. A copy of Defendant's motion dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43IEbcX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Alan Schoenfeld, Esq. Ryan Chabot, Esq. Margarita Botero, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 937-7294 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com ryan.chabot@wilmerhale.com margarita.botero@wilmerhale.com WAWA INC: Filing of Exhibit to Class Cert Opposition Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-06019-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order permitting Wawa to file Exhibit 23 to Wawa's Opposition to Class Certification and Exhibit 11 to Wawa's Motion for Summary Judgment under seal: 1. Wawa filed its Opposition to Class Certification and Motion for Summary Judgment on this Court's ECF system on May 26, 2023. 2. Wawa's Opposition and Motion for Summary Judgment are supported by certain exhibits which need to be filed under seal. 3. Exhibit 23 to Wawa's Opposition to Class Certification is a document that contains sensitive personal information about the Plaintiffs and their credit history. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43Wokaj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq. William H. Platt, II, Esq. HAVILAND HUGHES 201 South Maple Avenue, Suite 110 Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 609-4661 E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com platt@havilandhughes.com 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 WEAVE COMMUNICATIONS: McAfee Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- CIENAH MCAFEE, GAVEN MADSEN, and ALISSA RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEAVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00358-DAK (D. Utah, May 31, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs McAfee, Madsen and Rios were employed by the Defendant as sales development representatives from December 2020 through July 2021, from June 2018 through June 2021, and from May 2018 through May 2021, respectively. Weave Communications Inc. is a Lehi, Utah-based company that is incorporated in Delaware and sells communications platform.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: April Hollingsworth, Esq. Katie Panzer, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE 1881 South 1100 East Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Telephone: (801) 415-9909 Facsimile: (801) 303-7324 E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com katie@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 705 8th St. SE #100 Washington D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Class Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENT SORACE, JOSEPH YERTY, TAMMY YERTY, JAMES ZARONSKY, LINDA ZARONSKY, VIKTOR STEVENSON, ASHLEY YATES, and KIMBERLY SOLOMON-ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-04318-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- preliminarily approving the Parties' proposed settlement; -- certifying a Settlement Class; -- conditionally appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives of the Class; -- appointing Richard Shenkan and Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC and Hon. Lawrence F. Stengel (Ret.) and Saxton and Stump as Class Counsel; -- appointing Rust Consulting as the Settlement Administrator; -- approving the form and method of the Class Notice; -- setting the date for a hearing as to Final Approval of the Settlement; and -- setting interim deadlines for the members of the Class to object to or request exclusion from the Class. Wells Fargo operates as a bank. The Bank offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, and investment. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 31, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PcCnEO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC 6550 Lakeshore St. West Bloomfield, MI 48323 Telephone: (248) 562-1320 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Lawrence F. Stengel (Ret.), Esq. SAXTON & STUMP, P.C. 280 Granite Run Dr., Suite 300 Lancaster, PA 17601 Telephone: (717) 556-1000 E-mail: lfs@saxtonstump.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: $750K Class Deal in Ellis Suit Has Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska grants the parties' motion for final settlement approval in the lawsuit titled DEBORAH ELLIS, individually, and on behalf of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00238 (D. Neb.). The settlement resolves a certified Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and putative Rule 23 class action for federal and state wage and hour claims, involving Named Plaintiff Deborah Ellis and 195 Opt-In Plaintiffs, for a total payment of $750,000. The Court has reviewed the paperwork submitted with the settlement and the Court conducted a final fairness hearing on June 1, 2023. The Court grants the parties' motion and approves the settlement. On Feb. 14, 2023, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement finding, among other things, that the settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of the parties' bona fide dispute. It ordered the parties to provide settlement notice to class members, including information regarding their right to exclude themselves from or object to the settlement. Notice was sent to the Class and the settlement has been well received. No class member submitted an objection (Declaration of Lindsay Kline). One class member elected to proceed with his claim on an individual basis before notice was sent and only one other class member opted out of the settlement. The Settlement Agreement provides compensation in the total amount of $750,000 to the settlement class, which is comprised of 195 individuals. The average settlement share, free and clear of fees and costs, is $2,071.88 with several class members with the most damages receiving as much as $10,000. The agreement provides for an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $250,000 plus reasonable expenses. The agreement also provides for service awards of $1,000 to Named Plaintiff and the five discovery Plaintiffs, who each provided documents and sat for depositions. The Court finds that after providing the class the opportunity to weigh in on the settlement, the settlement has been well received with zero objections. Based on the Court's findings at the preliminary approval stage and the positive response which the settlement has received from class members, the Court finds that the parties' settlement is a reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute in contested litigation. The settlement class alleges that the Defendant failed to pay wages required under the FLSA and Nebraska law and the Defendant denies any wrongdoing and maintain they complied at all times with applicable law. The parties have shown in this case that a fair compromise at this juncture is more beneficial to the class members and the defendants, given the time, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation. The Settlement Agreement obviates the real risks to both parties that are inherent to the continued litigation of the matter. The parties have shown the Settlement Agreement is the product of arms' length negotiations by experienced counsel and it provides meaningful monetary relief to the Settlement Class. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel's fee request is reasonable and appropriate in that it constitutes one-third of the common fund and their lodestar significantly exceeds their fee request. The Court finds that the service awards of $1,000 to the Named Plaintiff and each of the discovery Plaintiffs is reasonable as each of these individuals contributed time and effort, including sitting for a deposition, which ultimately led to a successful settlement of the case. Judge Bataillon, therefore, ordered: 1. The parties' motion for approval of the parties' collective class settlement is granted and the Court finally approves the settlement; 2. The claims of Named Plaintiff and the Opt-In Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice. The claims of Opt-Out, Ditran Kutroli, are dismissed without prejudice. The only remaining claim is the individual claim of Christopher Midgett; 3. The parties' Settlement Agreement is approved and is incorporated here as if fully set forth; 4. The Court approves the contemplated service awards of $1,000 to Named Plaintiff and the five discovery plaintiffs; 5. Attorneys' fees in the amount of $250,000 are approved, as well as $44,496.20 in reasonable expenses; 6. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement; and 7. A judgment in accordance with this memorandum and order will be entered. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 1, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6u3btda from Leagle.com. WEST CAPITAL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARREN INGRAM and LINDA JOHNSTONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEST CAPITAL LENDING, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-03865-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending time for the Plaintiff to file their motion for class certification. Since receiving the information that third parties had relevant information to this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs have been seeking that information in the hands of third parties. The Plaintiffs have been engaged in a meet and confer process with these third parties to hopefully secure their responses or they will be forced to file miscellaneous actions securing the same. West Capital provides home loans. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MYdFVS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J Schwartz, Esq. 5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 455-4016 E-mail: adam@ajschwartzlaw.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St. No. 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas G. Hood, Esq. WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP 4665 MacArthur Ct No. 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 477-5050 WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA-Related Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2023, that on July 29, 2022, former Wintrust employee filed a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against Wintrust Financial Corporation. On November 8, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint. Plaintiff alleges Wintrust breached its fiduciary duty in the selection of BlackRock Target Date funds for inclusion in its 401(k) plan, and that Wintrust failed to monitor the performance of those funds. In the alternative, Wintrust should be liable for breach of trust. Plaintiff's sole basis for the allegations is that BlackRock Target Date funds allegedly performed more poorly than two comparable funds over a three-year period. Wintrust is one of several public companies that were sued on identical grounds within the same week by the same plaintiff's law firm. The Wintrust's motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. Wintrust is a financial holding company based in Illinois. WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Racial Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2023, that in May 25, 2022, a Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative class action and asserted individual claims against Wintrust Mortgage and Wintrust Financial Corporation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 23, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the entire suit. Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter 42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and the matter is awaiting a decision by the court. Wintrust is a financial holding company based in Illinois. WIPRO LIMITED: Loses Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Maclean Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY MACLEAN, et al., v. WIPRO LIMITED, Case No. 3:20-cv-03414-GC-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brendan Day entered an order that Wipro's request to bifurcate discovery is denied. The Court further ordered that: -- The parties shall meet and confer as to how discovery should proceed in this case in light of this Order; -- No later than June 21, 2023, the parties shall file via CM/ECF a joint proposed schedule; and -- It will conduct a telephone status conference on June 29, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. The Court agrees with the court in Bilek and believes that precertification discovery should be "sufficiently broad" to allow a thorough examination of the factual and legal allegations pertaining to class certification. But at the same time, pre-certification discovery concerning merits issues largely should be limited to determining whether class certification requirements can be met. In 2020, five former Wipro employees filed this putative class action alleging that Wipro had engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional race and national origin discrimination against non-South Asians and non-Indians, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Plaintiffs also alleged that Wipro's employment practices resulted in a disparate impact on non-South Asians and non-Indians, also in violation of Title VII. In December 2020, the Court stayed this action pending a class certification decision in Phillips v. Wipro Limited, et al., Civ. No. 18-00821 (S.D. Tex.), which predated this case and contained substantially similar allegations. Wipro Limited is a global information technology, consulting and outsourcing company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 31, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JgzVsX at no extra charge.[CC] YOUTUBE LLC: Schneider Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA SCHNEIDER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Maria Schneider, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YouTube, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04423-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs bring this action against YouTube and its parent company, Google, on behalf of themselves and four classes of copyright holders alleging direct, vicarious, and contributory infringement of their copyrights and alleging the improper removal or alteration of copyright management information (CMI) or the distribution of their works knowing that CMI was removed or altered in violation of U.S.C. section 1202(b). On Feb. 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On May 22, 2023, a mere three weeks before trial, the district court denied class certification. Then, the court permitted YouTube to withdraw its Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) defense, declined to decide the Plaintiffs' fully briefed motion for summary judgment on the DMCA, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion to stay the trial to resolve in the ordinary course this petition and any subsequent appeal. Judge James Donato said the claims against YouTube would require "highly individualized inquiries into the merits," adding, "Whether YouTube has a license for a particular work will be a matter of intense inquiry at trial. The answer to this inquiry will depend upon facts and circumstances unique to each work and copyright claimant." The appellate case is captioned Maria Schneider, et al. v. YouTube, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-80049, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 2, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners MARIA SCHNEIDER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Philip C. Korologos, Esq. Eric J. Brenner, Esq. Jeffrey Waldron, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: pkorologos@bsfllp.com ebrenner@bsfllp.com jwaldron@bsfllp.com - and - Joshua Irwin Schiller, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 44 Montgomery St., 41st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 293-6800 Facsimile: (415) 293-6899 E-mail: jischiller@bsfllp.com - and - George A. Zelcs, Esq. Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. David Walchak, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 North Michigan, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (312) 641-9751 E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com rewing@koreintillery.com dwalchak@koreintillery.com - and - Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. Carol O'Keefe, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com cokeefe@koreintillery.com YOUTUBE LLC: Schneider Withdraws Copyright Class Suit Before Trial ------------------------------------------------------------------ Isaiah Poritz of Bloomberg Law reports that Grammy-winning composer Maria Schneider voluntarily dismissed her copyright lawsuit against YouTube LLC over its Content ID anti-piracy system the day before it was set to go to a jury trial in San Francisco federal court. The US District Court for the Northern District of California closed the case on June 11, 2023. Accompanying dismissal papers said each party would bear their own attorneys' fees and expenses. Schneider, who has been a strong advocate for musician's rights, argued in her 2020 lawsuit that YouTube's Content ID system is available only to large movie studios and record labels, while independent artists like herself are left with few options to combat piracy on the platform. Content ID is a digital finger-printing system developed in 2007 that allows copyright owners to quickly remove infringing content or divert ad revenue from pirated videos. Stay Denied Schneider failed last week to convince the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit to pause the trial. The federal appeals court on June 9 denied Schneider's emergency motion to stay the case. It said it wouldn't grant her permission to appeal a lower court's denial of class certification for her case, which would have greatly expanded the number of copyright owners who could join the suit. Without the backing of a large group of similarly affected artists, Schneider would have had to try the case on her own, and the potential damages and injunctions she could win would have been limited. Infringement Claims Schneider would have argued at trial that YouTube infringed 27 of her musical works when they were uploaded to the platform without her permission. She also would have contended that YouTube also stripped the copyright management information from 10 of her works. In her proposed class action, Schneider said she and other artists had been denied access to Content ID, and could only find infringing content through the normal search function. US District Judge James Donato ruled last month that Schneider's case wasn't suitable for class certification because each claim by a copyright owner would "require highly individualized inquires." Schneider had argued in her emergency petition to the Ninth Circuit that the lack of class certification for her case will undermine a principal purpose for her bringing the suit: providing a "final judgment on whether YouTube qualifies for the" Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provision. The DMCA safe harbor protects online platforms from copyright suits as long as they have a system to take down infringing content and ban repeat infringers. After Donato denied class certification, YouTube withdrew its argument that it is protected by the safe harbor. Instead, it relied on arguments that Schneider has actually signed licenses in the past that allowed the platform to use her music. Korein Tillery LLC and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP represent Schneider. Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC represent YouTube. The case is Schneider v. YouTube LLC, N.D. Cal., No. 3:20-cv-04423, case closed 6/11/23. To contact the reporter on this story: Isaiah Poritz in Washington at iporitz@bloombergindustry.com To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jay-Anne B. Casuga at jcasuga@bloomberglaw.com [GN] ZENLEADS INC: Bellanca Files Placeholder Bid for Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BELLANCA, an Ohio citizen, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. ZENLEADS, INC. d/b/a Apollo.io, a Delaware corporation, the Plaintiff files a "placeholder" motion for class certification to protect against any potential attempt by the Defendant Zenleads to moot his claims through the tendering of individual relief. The Plaintiff files this motion to prevent a "pick-off" of his claims. The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition: "All current and former Ohio residents who are not subscribers to Apollo's platform and whose name and/or identity are used to market paid subscriptions for Apollo's platform." The Plaintiff requests the Court allow this "placeholder" motion for class certification to remain pending to protect against any alternative pick-off attempt following the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald. The proposed class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (g). The Plaintiff requests that following discovery and further briefing, the Court certify the class, appoint the Plaintiff as the class representatives, and appoint the Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. Zenleads designs and develops software. The Company provides a lead generation and sales communication platform. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 31, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43WYiE1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 W. Algonquin Rd. Ste 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.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 ***