/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230717.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, July 17, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 142
Headlines
2953 BROADWAY: Ye Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
3M COMPANY: Pritchett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Proulx Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Roberts Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Rogers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Rollins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Salinas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Watford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ABC LEGAL: Nicholas & Tomasevic Files Labor Class Action
AETNA LIFE: Goidel Suit Stayed Until July 28 to Focus on Settlement
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Transfer Class Suit to Federal Court Granted
ANTHEM CO: Lazaar Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
APPLE INC: Must Face Class Action Over CEO's China Sales Comment
ASTON MARTIN: Oct. 30 Settlement Claims Submission Deadline Set
BAE SYSTEMS: Cabrales Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 26
BAE SYSTEMS: Parties Seeks July 26 Extension for Class Cert Filing
BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Seal Docs Temporarily OK'd
BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. by Oct. 4, 2024
BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS: Denial of Arbitration in Herrera Suit Affirmed
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Court Vacates Hearing Set for July 27
BUFFALO, NY: Sued Over School Zone Safety Program Tickets
CASH ADVANCE: Stanton Must File Class Certification Bid by August 1
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Appeals Remand of Beltran Suit to 9th Cir.
CENTERSPACE LP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 24, 2024
CMG CIT: Class Settlement in Erquera Suit Gets Final Nod
COLETTE PETERS: Court Tosses Montalvo Bid for Class Certification
CONTRACT LAND: Must Oppose Weinmann Class Cert Bid by Nov. 7
CROWDERGULF LLC: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony Partly OK'd
CULTURAL CARE: Court Certifies Collective Action in Posada Suit
EDELSON PC: Ex-Volleyball Coach Sues Over False Accusations
EDWARD D. JONES & CO: Wins Bid to Quash Gunderson Subpoena
FACEBOOK INC: Plaintiffs Seek Attorneys' Fees, Expenses & Awards
FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid
GREENIX HOLDINGS: Seeks to Strike Allegations from Hutt SAC
GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA: Zeff Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
GUARDIAN SAVINGS: Class Cert. Discovery Due May 17, 2024
HONEYWELL INT'L: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action
IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Bid to Dismiss Genc 2nd Amended Complaint Tossed
INJURED WORKERS: Ex-Customers Can Pursue Data Breach Class Action
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Oct. 27 Filing of Class Cert Bid Sought
ITS LOGISTICS: Wage-and-Hour Class Action Settlement Rejected
JEFFREY SEARLS: Wins Bid to Decertify Class in Onosamba-Ohindo Suit
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
JLM DECORATING: Bid to Extend Time to File Class Cert Nixed
JP MORGAN: Completion of Class Discovery Due Jan. 11, 2024
KNIGHT HAWK: Court Adopts Proposed Sched & Discovery Order in Dye
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Moving Briefs Due Oct. 17
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Parties in Hobbs Seek Scheduling Order
LJUBLJANA INTER: Court Continues Deadline to Add More Plaintiffs
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 10, 2024
LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Upperco Sues Over Female Officers' Harassment
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 29, 2024
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Info, Richard Claims
MANPOWER US: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 12, 2024
MARRIOT INT'L: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Naprstek
MASA SUSHI: Chen Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
MAZDA MOTOR: Farina Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of Guthrie Case
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Courtyard v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Green Pond v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Philadelphia v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MDL 2918: Class Cert. Hearing Set for Sept. 19 in Antitrust Suit
MDL 2984: Must Oppose Class Certification by July 17
MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Subframe Rust
METALTEK INTERNATIONAL: FLSA Settlement in Herman Gets Initial Nod
MICHIGAN RESTAURANT: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Schnotala Says
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
MID‐CITY FOUNDRY: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 21, 2024
NEW YORK, NY: Forest Class Suit Proceedings Adjourned to July 18
NEW YORK: C.K. Bid to Compel Electronic Discovery Partly OK'd
NEXTFOODS INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 4
NYU LANGONE: General Pre-Trial Management Order Entered in Melendez
OPENAI INC: Tremblay Sues Over Illegal Use of Copyrighted Books
OPENAI INC: Two Authors File ChatGPT Copyright Class Action
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Carpenter
ORLANDO HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 19, 2024
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Carter Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee, Amended Suit
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Garcia Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee, Amended Suit
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Quinones Seeks to Stay Filing Fee
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Zirus Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee & Amended Suit
PHILLP PHIEFFERM: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Hoye
PHOENIX LAW: Court OK's Bid for Open Discovery in Scofield Suit
PLAZA CLUB: Bid to Amend Class Cert Scheduling Order Partly OK'd
PORTERCARE ADVENTIST: $6.5MM Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Court Narrows Claims in Thurston Suit
PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Sept. 28
RIPPLE LABS: Must Face Securities Class Action Over Crypto Losses
ROOFLINE INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 3, 2024
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Ill. Appeals Court Reverses BIPA Suit Ruling
RUSSIA: Jailed Politician's Family Sues Over Denied Prison Visits
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over QLED 4K Televisions
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Subclass in Dunsmore Provisionally Certified
SONY ELECTRONICS: Class Certification Order Entered in Musharbash
STONE AGE: Woods Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Servers
STRANGE HONEY: Greer Appeals Denial of Bid to Amend Complaint
SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: $6.2MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 27
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Court Denies Haley's Class Certification Bid
TESLA INC: Filing for Class Certification Due July 8, 2024
TORCH ELECTRONICS: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Opposes Addition of Callahan as Rep
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Class Cert Replies Due August 30 in Goble Suit
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due August 30
UBS GROUP: Credit Suisse Swiss Investors Join Class Action
UMG RECORDINGS: Sobol Suit Seeks to Vacate June 13, 2023 Order
UNCHCS: Bone Bid for Permanent Injunction Partly OK'd
UNITED PARCEL: Summary Adjudication as to Moore's FCRA Claim Upheld
UNITED SERVICES: Ordered to Pay $573,000 in Attorney's Fees
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan
VETERANS' HOME: Faces Class Action Over COVID Deaths
VIDEOTRON LTD: Court Authorizes Residential Customers' Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: New Jersey Court Narrows Claims in Mishkin Suit
WELSPUN PIPES: 8th Circuit Ruling in FLSA Class Suit Discussed
XTO ENERGY: Salvatora Amended Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd
*********
2953 BROADWAY: Ye Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XING YE, JIA WANG LIN,
HONG YI LIN LIANG YAN CHEN, MAO HUI LIN, YONG ZHONG WANG, FU LONG
XUE, XUE XIN ZOU, and YE CHENG LUO on behalf of themselves, and on
behalf of others similarly situated in the Potential Rule 23 Class,
v. 2953 BROADWAY INC. d/b/a VINE SUSHI, and CHO KAM SZE a/k/a Tommy
Sze, Case No. 1:18-cv-04941-JHR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23
of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(2) appointing them as class representatives;
(3) appointing Troy Law, PLLC and its attorneys John Troy,
Aaron
B. Schweitzer, and Tiffany Troy as class counsel;
(4) permitting the Plaintiffs to circulate a notice of class
action
by direct mail to class members and by publication; and
(5) granting such other and further relief as the Court shall
deem
just and proper.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44b6W23 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
3M COMPANY: Pritchett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos R. Pritchett, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02799-RMG (D.S.C., June 19,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Proulx Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Proulx, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-02281-RMG (D.S.C., May 26, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Roberts Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip W. Roberts, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02679-RMG (D.S.C., June 14,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was prostate cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Rogers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Rogers, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02754-RMG (D.S.C., June 15,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was prostate cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Rollins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Leroy Rollins, Jr., and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03084-RMG (D.S.C., June 28,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Salinas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Justin Salinas, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02805-RMG (D.S.C., June 19,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with
hypothyroidism, and mixed hyperlipidemia as a result of exposure to
the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Watford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Scott Watford, Sr., and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03098-RMG (D.S.C., June 28,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
ABC LEGAL: Nicholas & Tomasevic Files Labor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP, a leading law firm in labor and
employment class action litigation, filed a lawsuit against ABC
Legal Services, LLC for unfairly compensating its process servers
who carry out vital work for ABC Legal throughout California.
According to the lawsuit, ABC Legal has failed to provide minimum
protections to process servers under California law, such as not
paying process servers for the time they spend unsuccessfully
attempting to make service or perform related work like executing
levies. The lawsuit further alleges ABC Legal does not reimburse
process servers' business expenses (i.e., fuel costs, costs of
vehicle depreciation, cell phone data costs, and printing costs) or
pay its process servers overtime wages when they work over 8 hours
in a day or 40 hours in a week.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages and unpaid wages for the
affected process servers, as well as to hold ABC Legal accountable
for its violations of state labor laws.
"Regrettably, although California has made strenuous attempts to
guarantee fair conditions and sufficient pay to working class
people, companies like ABC Legal continue to knowingly take
advantage of workers to boost their own earnings," states Shaun
Markley, the attorney representing the workers in the lawsuit.
For more information, please contract Nicholas & Tomasevic at (619)
325-0492 or visit https://nicholaslaw.org/.
CONTACT:
Shaun Markley
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone (619) 325-0492
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org [GN]
AETNA LIFE: Goidel Suit Stayed Until July 28 to Focus on Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goidel et al. v. Aetna
Life Insurance Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-07619-VSB-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order granting a 30-day
stay of all deadlines to focus on settlement.
-- The action is stayed until July 28, 2023.
-- The parties shall provide an update on the status of
settlement
discussions by July 28, 2023.
Aetna is an American managed health care company that sells
traditional and consumer directed health care insurance and related
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3px0eEz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zoe Salzman, Esq.
Debra Greenberger, Esq.
Eric Abrams, Esq.
Andrew K. Jondahl, Esq.
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF
ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP
600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 763-5000
- and -
Sunu Chandy, Esq.
Michelle Banker, Esq.
Alison Tanner, Esq.
Noel R. León, Esq.
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW
CENTER
1350 I Street NW, Suite 700
Washington DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 588-5180
The Defendant is represented by:
Earl B. Austin, Esq.
Sarah Reeves, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY York 10112
Telephone: (212) 408-2500
- and -
Mariellen Dugan, Esq.
CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY LLP
One Newark Center
1085 Raymond Blvd, 14th Floor
Newark, NJ Jersey 07102
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Transfer Class Suit to Federal Court Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Lawyers Weekly reports that where a woman suing Amazon for
allegedly deceptive trade practices consented to the exclusive
jurisdiction and venue for all claims in Washington state when she
signed up for her account, and the public factors favored transfer,
the suit was transferred to that federal district court.
Background
This is a putative class action alleging that defendants' automatic
renewal practices violate Virginia statutory and common law.
Defendants Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC move to
transfer this matter to the Western District of Washington. The
court held a hearing on this motion on June 6, 2023. The court will
grant the motion to transfer for the reasons stated on the record
at the hearing and for the reasons set forth below.
Forum-selection clause
First, it is undisputed that plaintiff signed-in to her Amazon
Prime account during the class period. It is also undisputed that
to sign-in, she had to enter an email or mobile phone number and
click on the "Continue" button. Immediately underneath that button,
the page notes, "By continuing, you agree to Amazon's Conditions of
Use [with a hyperlink] and Privacy Notice [with a hyperlink]."
Thus, by clicking on the continue button, plaintiff agreed to
Amazon's conditions of use, or COUs. The COUs include a forum
selection clause that requires "[a]ny dispute or claim relating in
any way to your use of any Amazon Service [to] be adjudicated in
the state or Federal courts in King County, Washington" and
expressly states that users "consent to exclusive jurisdiction and
venue in these courts."
A forum selection clause is "'given controlling weight in all but
the most exceptional cases,' and the plaintiff bears the burden of
proving why it should not be enforced." Plaintiff has not met her
burden of showing that the forum selection clause should not be
enforced.
Public factors
Courts weighing transfer pursuant to § 1404(a) evaluate
considerations of private and public interest, but because there is
an enforceable forum selection clause, the court "may consider
arguments about public-interest factors only." The public-interest
factors include respective docket congestion, the transferee
court's familiarity with the relevant law, the pendency of a
related action and the relationship of the community to the
controversy.
Plaintiff has failed to show that the public-interest factors
"overwhelmingly disfavor a transfer." Most notably, three similar
and related cases—one of which was filed by plaintiff's
lawyers—are already pending in the Western District of Washington
before the same district judge. As the district court noted in
Gonzalez v. Homefix Custom Remodeling, Corp., 2023 WL 3115585, at
*6 (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2023), it is "generally in the interest of
justice if a decision not to transfer would lead to courts
rendering inconsistent judgments on the same issue."
Defendants' motion to transfer granted.
Adams v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-00121, June 14, 2023.
WDVA at Roanoke (Dillon). VLW 023-3-335. 3 pp. [GN]
ANTHEM CO: Lazaar Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lazaar v. The Anthem
Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03075-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge John G. Koeltl entered an order granting the plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) collective:
"All persons who worked as Utilization Review Nurses, Medical
Management Nurses, Utilization Management Nurses, Utilization
Managers, or in similar positions who were paid a salary and
treated as exempt from overtime laws and were primarily
responsible
for performing medical necessity reviews for the Defendants in
New
York from three years prior to the date notice is sent through
the
present."
The plaintiff alleges that the Defendants unlawfully misclassified
her and similarly situated individuals as exempt from the overtime
pay requirements of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
The defendants are subsidiaries of Anthem, the health insurance
company.
The plaintiff is a licensed registered nurse, or “RN," whom the
defendants allegedly employed from April 2012 through January 2017
as a "utilization review nurse," in which capacity she principally
performed "medical necessity reviews."
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JDEQEI at no extra charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Must Face Class Action Over CEO's China Sales Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Apple
must face a class action lawsuit alleging its CEO Tim Cook misled
investors in 2018, after a California federal judge rejected its
motion to dismiss the shareholders' claims.
On June 26, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in
favor of the plaintiff investors in deciding that that lawsuit
against the tech giant could proceed, Reuters reports.
The lawsuit stems from comments Cook made on a Nov. 1, 2018,
analyst call.
According to investors, Cook misled investors when he said that
while Apple faced sales pressure in markets such as Brazil, India,
Russia and Turkey, where currencies had weakened, "I would not put
China in that category."
Apple told suppliers a few days later to curb production, and on
Jan. 2, 2019, unexpectedly slashed its quarterly revenue forecast
by up to $9 billion, blaming U.S.-China trade tensions, Reuters
reports.
The move allegedly led to a $74 billion dip in Apple's market value
the next day. The lowered revenue forecast was Apple's first since
the iPhone's launch in 2007, and the company's shares fell 10%.
Judge rejects Apple's defense argument
Apple argued Cook's comments were a statement of opinion, and
therefore protected.
However, the court did not agree.
Judge Rogers said in her order that jurors could reasonably infer
Cook was discussing Apple's sales outlook in China, not past
performance or the impact of currency changes, as argued by the
tech giant.
Judge Rogers also noted Apple knew China's economy had slowed, and
data suggested demand could fall. Knowing this and not telling
investors was potentially a violation of the law, she said.
The lawsuit officially gained class action status in February 2022.
Meanwhile, Apple will pay $100 million and make sweeping changes to
its App Store as part of a class action settlement resolving claims
it violated antitrust laws with its app development monopoly.
App developers filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against
Apple in 2019, claiming the tech giant maintained an unlawful
monopoly on distribution services.
The Apple shareholders' class action lawsuit is In re: Apple Inc
Securities Litigation, Case No. 19-02033, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]
ASTON MARTIN: Oct. 30 Settlement Claims Submission Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Belmonte, writing for Narcity, reports that settlements for
auto parts class-action lawsuits in Canada are being paid out, and
tons of drivers could get money for overpaying for car parts.
If you bought or leased a new vehicle from certain automakers over
an 18-year period, you could be part of this class action.
It was announced recently that court approval was given for
settlements totalling $78 million in class actions related to the
alleged price fixing of automotive parts.
More than 40 class-action lawsuits in Canada have alleged that for
over a decade, there were conspiracies to fix the price of auto
parts that would be installed in new vehicles.
Even though settlements have been reached for these class actions,
parts manufacturers haven't admitted any wrongdoing or liability
related to the lawsuits.
The Canadian auto parts class-action settlements are being given
out in multiple distributions.
Before this, the first settlement was related to seven class-action
lawsuits, and payments were issued in March 2021.
Now, courts in Ontario, B.C. and Quebec have approved the
settlements and protocols for distributing funds to people who
purchased vehicles affected by the alleged price-fixing
conspiracy.
That means the claims process is now open, and Canadians must file
a claim if they think they're entitled to compensation.
So, here's what you need to know about eligibility, submitting a
claim and getting money through the Canadian auto parts class
actions.
Who is eligible to make a claim in the class action lawsuit?
You're eligible to receive compensation from this class action
lawsuit if you purchased or leased new vehicles (passenger car,
sport utility vehicle, van and/or light truck) sold by the
following automakers between July 1, 1998, and September 30, 2016:
Aston Martin
BMW and Mini Cooper
Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep and Ram
Ford, Lincoln and Mercury
General Motors (Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Daewoo, GMC, Hummer,
Isuzu, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saab and Saturn)
Honda and Acura
Jaguar and Land Rover
Mazda
Nissan and Infiniti
Subaru
Toyota and Lexus
Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche and Volvo
No wrongdoing is alleged against the automakers and they are not
defendants in the class actions.
It's alleged that parts manufacturers conspired to fix the price of
automotive parts, including air conditioning systems, auto lights,
braking systems, door latches, ignition coils, power window
switches, shock absorbers, and more.
You are still allowed to submit a claim even if you have since sold
the vehicle you bought or leased that's part of this class-action
lawsuit.
How do I submit a claim for the settlement?
You can submit a claim and apply for payment online, and there are
no costs associated with submitting a claim.
If you received a letter or an email with a claim ID and PIN --
which are being sent out between June 28, 2023, and July 12, 2023
-- you'll have to put that information in to start your claim.
Automakers will provide customer information as proof of purchase
in these cases, and that will either be prepopulated in the online
claim form or provided to the claims administrator.
If you didn't get a claim ID and PIN, you can still submit a claim
to get money from this class-action settlement.
When submitting a claim as an individual, you'll have to put in
your contact information, purchase information, and payment
information.
Proof of purchase can be invoices, receipts, original purchase or
lease records, insurance documentation, government vehicle
identification history documentation, or historical accounting
records.
For purchases and/or leases of up to 15 vehicles that are included
in the class action lawsuit, you must provide the make, model, and
year of each affected vehicle.
For purchases and/or leases of more than 15 vehicles, you must
complete the purchases spreadsheet that can be downloaded online.
How much money will I receive?
Payments will be distributed proportionally based on the value of
your claim relative to the value of all approved claims.
It's expected that all claims will receive a minimum payment of $25
per claim -- not per vehicle -- but some people could get thousands
of dollars from the settlement depending on their claim value.
Class members could see a good chunk of change in their
settlements, entitled to up to 67.5% of their vehicle's purchase
price when bought within the qualifying years.
Note that the purchase price is not necessarily the price paid for
the car but rather a calculation based on the manufacturer's
suggested retail price (MSRP).
Depending on the number of claims forms filed, it could be up to a
year after the claims deadline before you get your compensation.
If your claim is approved and you selected that you wanted to
receive your payment via e-Transfer, you'll get an email with your
e-Transfer from Interac when the settlement is given out.
If you didn't select e-Transfer as your preferred payment method, a
cheque through the mail to the address you entered in your claim
and the money will be subjected to a $2 fee.
When is the deadline to make a claim?
The deadline to file a claim in the Canadian auto parts class
action lawsuit to get part of the settlement is October 30, 2023.
Claims won't be accepted after that and you will no longer be
eligible for compensation. [GN]
BAE SYSTEMS: Cabrales Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 26
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cabrales v. Bae Systems
San Diego Ship Repair, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02122 (S.D.
Cal., Filed Dec. 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia
entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file:
-- The parties report that notwithstanding this Court's order
denying
the Plaintiff's ex parte motion for an extension of the
deadline
to move for class certification, the Defendant has stipulated
to a
30-day extension.
-- Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Joint Motion is
granted.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class must be filed by
not
later than July 26, 2023. This deadline will not be continued.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.[CC]
BAE SYSTEMS: Parties Seeks July 26 Extension for Class Cert Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO CABRALES,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BAE
SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
Plaintiffs' deadline to file motion for class certification.
The parties move the Court to issue an order granting the
Plaintiffs an extension of time, from June 26, 2023, to July 26,
2023, to file a motion for class certification.
On December 2, 2022, the Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulating
Discovery and Pre-Trial Proceedings, which set June 5, 2023, as the
deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification.
During a discovery hearing on May 4, 2023, the Plaintiffs' counsel
orally moved the Court for an extension of time to file a motion
for class certification.
On June 20, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiffs Ex Parte
Application to:
(1) continue the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for
class certification for 90 days, and
(2) reopen class certification discovery for a limited purpose,
noting that for class certification purposes the Plaintiff
possessed "information with respect to the putative class
members employed by the Defendant."
BAE Systems provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization,
conversion, and overhaul services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NBaX92 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Dalia Khalili, Esq.
Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
E-mail: matern@maternlawgroup.com
dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
mgordon@maternlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mary C. Dollarhide, Esq.
Taylor Wemmer, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121-2133
Telephone: (858) 677-1400
Facsimile: (858) 677-1401
E-mail: mary.dollarhide@us.dlapiper.com
taylor.wemmer@dlapiper.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Seal Docs Temporarily OK'd
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Philadelphia, et
al. v. Bank of Am. Corp., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01608-JMF
(Court), the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an order temporarily
granting the defendant's motion to seal.
The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed
or redacted when deciding the underlying motions.
Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Courts Individual Rules and Practices in
Civil Cases, and the Stipulation and Order Regarding Redaction and
Sealing Process for Class Certification Briefing, the Defendants,
on behalf of all parties, seek leave to file the Defendants' Reply
Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the Defendants' Motion to
Exclude Expert Testimony and supporting documents with certain
confidential documents and information redacted.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NZdnQb at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq.
Robert D. Wick, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
The New York Times Building
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 841-1000
E-mail: aruffino@cov.com
rwick@cov.com
- and -
Jayant W. Tambe, Esq.
Laura Washington Sawyer, Esq.
Cealagh P. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Meredith Christian, Esq.
Michael P. Conway, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281-1047
Telephone: (212) 326-3604
Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
E-mail: jtambe@jonesday.com
lwsawyer@jonesday.com
cfitzpatrick@jonesday.com
mconway@jonesday.com
- and -
Noah Levine, Esq.
Chris Johnstone, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 230-8800
E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com
chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Heather Nyong'o, Esq.
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
650 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (650) 815-4140
E-mail: hnyongo@cgsh.com
- and -
Boris Bershteyn, Esq.
Lara Flath, Esq.
Kamali P. Willett, Esq.
Gretchen Wolf, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
Facsimile: (917) 777-3834
E-mail: boris.bershteyn@skadden.com
lara.flath@skadden.com
kamali.willett@skadden.com
gretchen.wolf@skadden.com
- and -
Brad S. Karp, Esq.
Susanna M. Buergel, Esq.
Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
Jane B. O'Brien, Esq.
Lina Dagnew, Esq.
Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
Staci Yablon, Esq.
William B. Michael, Esq.
Paul D. Brachman, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Telephone: (212) 373-3553
Facsimile: (212) 492-0553
E-mail: bkarp@paulweiss.com
sbuergel@paulweiss.com
kgallo@paulweiss.com
jobrien@paulweiss.com
ldagnew@paulweiss.com
syablon@paulweiss.com
rsperling@paulweiss.com
wmichael@paulweiss.com
pbrachman@paulweiss.com
- and -
Andrew J. Frackman, Esq.
Michael M. Klotz, Esq.
Sergei Zaslavsky, Esq.
Adam Walker, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
E-mail: afrackman@omm.com
mklotz@omm.com
szaslavsky@omm.com
awalker@omm.com
- and -
Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
Grace J. Lee, Esq.
John F. Cove, Jr., Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6069
Telephone: (212) 848-4000
Facsimile: (212) 848-7179
E-mail: adam.hakki@shearman.com
grace.lee@shearman.com
john.cove@shearman.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. by Oct. 4, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Dania Beach Police
& Firefighters' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01540-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald entered an order
Event Deadline
-- Deadline for the Defendants to serve: July 8, 2022
-- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to provide Aug. 1, 2022
the Defendants with a copy of any entry
of the proposed amended complaint:
-- Deadline for the Defendants to propose Aug. 1, 2022
custodians and search terms for service:
-- Deadline to agree or file pre-motion Aug. 15,
2022
letters on ESI protocol:
-- Deadline to agree or for the Plaintiffs Aug. 30,
2022
to move to compel on custodians and
search terms with respect to Upstream
Issues and class certification:
-- Close of fact discovery: April 4, 2024
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion Oct. 4, 2024
to certify the OTC class with respect to
the Foreign Defendants:
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters
in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NGb4Qy at no extra charge.[CC]
BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS: Denial of Arbitration in Herrera Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARACELI HERRERA, Plaintiff and Respondent v.
BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case
No. G061702 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth
District, Division Three, affirms the trial court's denial of the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis.
After Herrera filed a class action complaint against her former
employer Behavioral Systems Southwest, Inc. (BSS or Appellant), BSS
filed a motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis. The
trial court denied the motion, after determining the arbitration
agreement was unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion
and lacked mutuality. On appeal, BSS contends the court erred in
determining the agreement lacked mutuality.
On Jan. 28, 2022, Herrera filed a class action complaint for
restitution, alleging a single cause of action for violation of the
Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The complaint
did not reference any arbitration agreement.
On May 3, 2022, BSS filed its motion to compel arbitration on an
individual basis, to dismiss the class claims, and to stay the
action (Arbitration Motion). In the motion, BSS alleged that its
Employee Handbook contained a mandatory arbitration agreement. On
June 26, 2017, Herrera signed a statement affirming she had "read
the rules and regulations set forth in the BSS Employee Handbook,"'
and '"agreed to abide by these rules during her employment."' BSS
further alleged that after her first week of training, on July 3,
2017, Herrera signed the arbitration agreement in the handbook.
Three weeks later, on July 26, 2017, Herrera signed another
statement again affirming she had read and agreed to the rules in
the handbook.
The arbitration agreement which Herrera purportedly signed on July
3, 2017, was attached in a supporting declaration. Underneath the
arbitration agreement is an acknowledgment statement. Immediately
under the acknowledgement are the signatures of the employee and a
witness.
Herrera opposed the Arbitration Motion, arguing that BSS failed to
meet its burden of proving the existence of an agreement to
arbitrate, and that the purported arbitration agreement was
unconscionable and cannot be enforced. Herrera also argued the
arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively
unconscionable.
In reply, BSS asserted that it had proved the existence of an
arbitration agreement because Herrera's sworn declaration merely
stated she was surprised to learn she had signed an arbitration
agreement, not that she did not recall signing it. Additionally,
BSS argued the attached declaration of Shaney Gray sufficiently
showed, by a preponderance of evidence, that Herrera signed the
arbitration agreement. Gray was the person who signed as a witness
on the arbitration agreement.
BSS also argued the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable.
Acknowledging the adhesive nature of the contract, it contended the
procedural unconscionability was minimal. However, BSS argued there
was no substantive unconscionability. Relying on Roman v. Superior
Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462 (Roman), it argued the "I agree"
language did not establish the lack of mutuality because the "all
disputes" language binds both BSS and Herrera to arbitration.
On July 22, 2022, the trial court denied the Arbitration Motion. It
found that the BSS has shown the existence of an arbitration
agreement signed by Herrera, but not by Defendant. The trial court,
however, concluded that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable
because it was unconscionable based on lack of mutuality. The court
determined that the Defendant has not shown that it agreed to
arbitrate any or all disputes with plaintiff, but only that
plaintiff so agreed. It distinguished Roman based on the differing
language in the respective arbitration agreements and the fact that
the instant arbitration agreement was "on page 87 of a document
package."
The Court of Appeals opines that the "I agree" language, which
applies only to Herrera, shows lack of mutuality. There is no other
evidence in the record that suggests otherwise. For example, there
is no provision that stated Herrera and BSS agreed or that the
parties "mutually agree" to submit their claims to arbitration. Nor
is there any language referencing BSS in connection with
arbitration, such as the procedure for initiating arbitration or
the paying of arbitral costs. Finally, there is no language that
the agreement was between the parties. In sum, the trial court did
not err in determining that the arbitration lacked mutuality and
denying the arbitration motion.
The order of the trial court denying the motion to compel
arbitration is affirmed. Herrera may recover her costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p97xf8w from Leagle.com.
Workwise Law, George P. Albutt -- george@workwiselaw.com -- and
Renee N. Noy -- renee@workwiselaw.com -- for the Defendant and
Appellant.
Lawyers for Justice, Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@calljustice.com --
Arby Aiwazian, Elizabeth M. Parker-Fawley --
elizabeth@calljustice.com -- and Won Christina Chang, for the
Plaintiff and Respondent.
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Court Vacates Hearing Set for July 27
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Bradley University,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01264 (C.D. Ill., Filed July 14, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Colleen R. Lawless entered an order vacating the motion
hearing set for July 27, 2023.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
Bradley University is a private university in Peoria, Illinois.
Founded in 1897, Bradley University enrolls 5,400 students who are
pursuing degrees in more than 100 undergraduate programs and more
than 30 graduate programs in five colleges.[CC]
BUFFALO, NY: Sued Over School Zone Safety Program Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------
Sydni Eure, writing for WKBW, reports that it all dates back to the
year 2020.
"We were in COVID, people were losing their jobs, staying at home
and the city came out with this program supposedly based on
safety," Attorney Kevin Stocker said.
The City of Buffalo launched the School Zone Safety Program in the
Fall of 2020. Dozens of speed cameras were installed in school
zones and thousands of tickets were issued. The city would generate
$1.8 million in revenue in the one year the program was in effect.
However, in 2021 Stocker filed a lawsuit against the city and said
not only did the program's reduced speed limit create even more
dangerous conditions, it also seemed as if people were being
targeted financially.
"It appeared to me that they were targeting people that would be
poor or working class and struggling especially during the COVID
times everybody was struggling," Stocker said.
First offense tickets were issued at $50, second offense at $75 and
third offense at $100.
New York State Supreme Court Justice Henry Nowak has since issued a
decision which will allow people to be included in a class-action
lawsuit and get that money back.
"We think with what the judge set the class action at and the time
frames, we're looking at somewhere between two and three million
dollars in revenue," Stocker said. "They knew what they did was
wrong and they should refund everybody's money."
Stocker said anyone who got a ticket with a plea or a pay date of
November 19, 2020 through July 15, 2021 is eligible to take part on
the class-action lawsuit.
"Parents actually when they see me on the streets are so happy
because a lot of them their children got tickets in their names
because it doesn't go to the driver but the registered owner of the
vehicle," Stocker said. "So parents all across the city and Western
New York are very upset with the program."
Stocker said they are currently in the litigation process and have
a court date in the coming weeks. He is continuing to learn just
how many were impacted and feels confident they will be getting the
fine money back to that group of people. [GN]
CASH ADVANCE: Stanton Must File Class Certification Bid by August 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stanton v. Cash Advance
Centers, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00285 (W.D. Mo., Filed April 28,
2021), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting
joint motion to amend scheduling order as follows:
(1) The Plaintiff's shall designate expert witnesses on or
before
July 23, 2023.
(2) The Defendant shall designate expert witnesses on or before
August 22, 2023.
(3) The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification on
or
before August 1, 2023.
(4) The Defendant shall file its opposition brief to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification on or before
September 13, 2023.
(5) The Plaintiff shall reply to her motion for class
certification
on or before September 27, 2023.
(6) Fact discovery shall close on September 3, 2023.
(7) Expert discovery shall close on September 22, 2023.
(8) The parties shall file dispositive and Daubert motions on or
before October 3, 2023.
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
America Cash Advance provides cash advances online and through
centers across the United States.[CC]
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Appeals Remand of Beltran Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand their lawsuit
entitled Steven Beltran, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cedars-Sinai Health
System, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02626-DSF-JPR, pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, brought a
10-count complaint against the Defendants to challenge
Cedars-Sinai's routine on-line practices as various invasions of
privacy, including alleged violations of the (1) California
Invasion of Privacy Act; (2) Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act; (3) California's Constitutional right to privacy; (4)
California Unfair Competition Law; (5) negligence; (6) negligence
per se; (7) breach of implied contract; (8) breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (9) breach of fiduciary
duty; and (10) breach of duty.
On Apr. 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case
to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Dale S. Fischer on May 24, 2023.
Judge Fischer held that a private firm's compliance (or
noncompliance) with federal laws, rules, and regulations does not
by itself fall within the scope of the statutory phrase 'acting
under' a federal 'official.' And that is so even if the regulation
is highly detailed and even if the private firm's activities are
highly supervised and monitored. The directions Cedars-Sinai points
to are general regulations and public directives regarding the
development of health information technology and an electronic
health records infrastructure. Therefore, removal is not justified
by federal officer jurisdiction.
For these reasons, Judge Fischer granted the motion to remand.
The appellate case is captioned Steven Beltran, et al. v.
Cedars-Sinai Health System, et al., Case No. 23-55557, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June
26, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Cedars-Sinai Health System and Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center mediation questionnaire was due on July 3, 2023;
-- Appellants Cedars-Sinai Health System and Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center opening brief is due on August 28, 2023;
-- Appellees Steven Beltran and Lisa Reingold answering brief is
due on September 28, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVEN BELTRAN, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Defendants-Appellants CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, et al. are
represented by:
Dyanne J. Cho, Esq.
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 979-8418
(310) 820-8800
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 764-4013
- and -
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
999 3rd Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 566-7092
CENTERSPACE LP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 24, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gary Hall, v. Centerspace
LP, Case No. 0:22-cv-02028-KMM-DJF (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Dulce
J. Foster entered a pretrial scheduling order as follows:
1. Deadline for initial disclosures: June 26, 2023
2. Deadline for the exchange of June 26, 2023
documents identified in each party's
initial disclosures:
3. Interim deadline for substantial September 29,
2023
completion of document production:
4. Deadline for completion of all fact April 26, 2024
discovery:
5. Deadline to disclose the identity of April 1, 2024
initial experts:
6. Deadline for service of initial expert April 1, 2024.
reports:
7. Deadline to disclose the identity of April 29. 2024
rebuttal experts:
8. Deadline for service of rebuttal April 29, 2024
expert reports:
9. Deadline for completion of all May 28, 2024
Expert discovery, including
depositions:
10. Motions to join or add parties: October 16, 2023
11. Motions to amend the pleadings: October 16, 2023
12. The Plaintiff's motion for class May 24, 2024
certification:
13. All other non-dispositive motions: Feb. 29, 2024
Centerspace is a real estate company focused on the ownership,
management, acquisition, and redevelopment of apartment
communities.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pvT2bX at no extra charge.[CC]
CMG CIT: Class Settlement in Erquera Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARITA ERGUERA, an
individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v.
CMG CIT ACQUISITION, LLC, et al.,Case No. 1:20-cv-01744-JLT-CDB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Leigh Thurston entered an
order granting the plaintiff's motion for attorney' fees,
litigation costs,
administration expenses, and service Payment.
1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the Settlement
is
granted.
2. Certification of the Settlement Class is granted, and the
Class
is defined as follows:
"All non-exempt hourly healthcare professionals employed by
the Defendant in California who, at any time from December 8,
2016 through September 30, 2022, worked overtime and received
a
per diem allowance."
3. The request for a Class Representative service payment to the
Plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.00 is granted.
4. Class Counsel's motion for fees in the amount of 25% of the
gross settlement fund—in the total amount of $225,000.00 is
granted.
5. Class Counsels request for costs in the amount of $9,305.85
is
granted.
6. Settlement Administration expenses in the amount of
$10,000.00,
to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund, are approved.
7. The action is dismissed with prejudice, with each side to
bear
its own costs and attorneys’ fees except as otherwise
provided
by the Settlement and ordered by the Court.
The Defendants "operate a healthcare staffing company that employs
hourly health care professionals for short-term travel assignments
at health care providers throughout California and elsewhere."
CMG CIT operates as a health care staffing and recruiting agency.
The Company specializes in travel and permanent placement of
nurses.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CW6oBi at no extra charge.[CC]
COLETTE PETERS: Court Tosses Montalvo Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael L. Montalvo, v.
Colette Peters, Case No. 2:23-cv-00584-DJH-ESW (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
request for class certification.
The Clerk of Court must send the Plaintiff a service packet
including the Complaint, the Memorandum in Support of Complaint,
this Order, and a summons form for the Defendant Peters.
Mr. Montalvo, who is confined in the Federal Correctional
Institution-Phoenix, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331 and a Memorandum of Law in
Support (Doc. 3) and has paid the filing and administrative fees.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46B9tUO at no extra charge.[CC]
CONTRACT LAND: Must Oppose Weinmann Class Cert Bid by Nov. 7
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAYL WEINMANN, v. CONTRACT
LAND STAFF, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01140-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered a second case management
order as follows:
1. The Plaintiff will serve the Court-Approved June 30,
2023
Notice to putative members of the
conditionally certified Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective on or
Before:
2. A reminder notice for those putative July 28,
2023
collective members who have not returned
a signed consent form may be sent on or
before:
3. The deadline by which putative collective Aug. 29,
2023
members must file a form consenting to
join this litigation is:
4. The parties shall complete the first phase Sept. 11,
2023
of discovery, related only to the
Plaintiff's proposed motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23, on or before:
5. Opening expert reports for class June 30,
2023
certification, if any, shall be filed
on or before:
6. Any responses to the expert reports for July 21,
2023
class certification shall be filed on
or before:
7. The Defendant's opposition shall be filed: Oct. 17,
2023
8. The Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be Oct. 24, 2023
filed:
9. Parties' cross-motions shall be filed Oct. 31,
2023
on or before:
10. Oppositions shall be filed on or before: Nov. 7, 2023
Contract Land is an independent full-service provider of Right of
Way (ROW), and land management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JF5JIc at no extra charge.[CC]
CROWDERGULF LLC: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimony Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH PALMISANO, JAY
HAJESKI, SEAN WALL, WALTER EVERETT, and MATTHEW MANIBUSAN
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
CROWDERGULF, LLC, BIL-JIM CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., MAPLE LAKE, INC.,
R. KREMER AND SON MARINE CONTRACTORS, LLC, ABC CORPORATIONS
(1-100), DEF CORPORATIONS (1-500), and JOHN DOES (1-10), et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-09371-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Peter G.
Sheridan entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendant's motion to exclude Expert's Kristin K. Kucsma
testimony.
-- An economist such as Kucsma cannot assume each hour of truck
service included an hour of pay for a truck driver unless
there
is some factual support for the proposition. As such, Kucsma's
alternate methods to determine "potential additional members"
is
unreliable. In conclusion, the motion to exclude the testimony
of
Kucsma is granted in part and denied in part.
CrowderGulf provides disaster recovery and debris management
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44m7IJp at no extra charge.[CC]
CULTURAL CARE: Court Certifies Collective Action in Posada Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN MORALES POSADA,
AMANDA SARMENTO FERREIRA GUIMARES, WILLIANA ROCHA and SARA
BARRIENTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CULTURAL CARE, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-11862-IT (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani
entered an order:
-- denying Cultural Care's Motion to Strike Pre-Certification
Consents; and
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a collective action
and to issue notice to the Proposed Collective.
Accordingly, the court finds it sufficient to include in the notice
that the Plaintiffs "may be required to submit documents and
testify under oath at a deposition, hearing, or trial" without
further elaboration.
The Plaintiffs Karen Morales Posada, Amanda Sarmento Ferreira
Guimares, Williana Rocha, and Sara Barrientos allege that the
Defendant Cultural Care, Inc. has violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) by failing to pay minimum wages and overtime pay and by
failing to provide certain disclosures.
The court conditionally certifies a class consisting of:
"all individuals who were sponsored by Cultural Care and worked
as
J-1 visa au pairs during any portion of the period commencing
three
years prior to the filing of this action through the entry
of final judgment in this action."
Cultural Care was founded in 2004. The Company line of business
includes providing childcare services for infants and children.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4465tKo at no extra charge.[CC]
EDELSON PC: Ex-Volleyball Coach Sues Over False Accusations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
former volleyball coach, beset by years of sexual abuse
allegations, has sued a prominent Chicago class action law firm he
said led "duplicitous litigation" over allegedly false
accusations.
In February 2018, Laura Mullen filed a federal lawsuit in Chicago
alleging coach Rick Butler had a history of "sexual abuse of
underage girls" in connection with Sports Performance Volleyball
Club and Great Lakes Volleyball Center, operated by GLV Inc.
Butler's wife, Cheryl Butler, also was a named defendant. Mullen,
whose daughter played at Sports Performance, said she and other
parents "would never have sent their girls" to the club had they
known "a child sexual predator would coach their teenage
daughters."
Mullen's allegations followed national sports media reporting on
Butler's ban from both USA Volleyball and the Amateur Athletic
Union. Mullen said ESPN called Butler "the most powerful coach in
youth volleyball," noting he was able to place his players to top
college programs throughout the country. She said Butler has, for
more than three decades, "used his position of power to sexually
abuse no fewer than six underage teenage girls, and likely more."
In 2019, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly certified a class of
those "who paid for volleyball instruction through the Sports
Performance program that Rick Butler supervised." But in 2020 he
granted summary judgment to the Butlers and GLV. Although he noted
his ruling did not address "whether the allegations of sexual abuse
by Rick Butler are true or false," Kennelly determined GLV made no
statements about its programs' safety that could support Mullen's
fraud allegations.
"Evidence of GLV employees' awareness of Rick's past does not --
without more -- support a reasonable inference that they believed
he was unqualified to coach youth volleyball," Kennelly wrote.
"Furthermore, there is no evidence that would permit a reasonable
inference that any GLV employee believed that Rick's history
rendered GLV's staff, as a whole, unqualified to coach."
Kennelly further determined Mullen was unsuitable as a class
representative for her Illinois Physical Fitness Services and
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices acts claims but offered the
class a chance to substitute a suitable plaintiff. That didn't
happen, and by the time the issue reached the U.S. Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals, which issued its opinion June 23, 2022, Mullen
conceded it was an individual action and had dropped many of the
legal theories argued before Kennelly.
"Like the district judge, we do not take any position on whether
the reports are right about what happened in the 1980s, let alone
on whether Butler's behavior was ethical even if the girls had
reached the age of 18," read the appellate opinion, written by
Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook. The panel affirmed Kennelly's
ruling that Mullen couldn't show a legal injury.
On June 23, 2023, the Butlers and GLV sued Mullen and Edelson PC,
citing a "sham class action lawsuit" they called "part of a
deceitful, calculated plan to cut the Butlers off from their
supporters, punish GLV customers for their association with the
Butlers, and destroy the Butlers' business."
In their motion, the Butlers painted the initial 1994 accusations
against Rick as overblown assertions about players he coached in
the 1980s who "were above the legal age of consent" at the time.
They singled out his former business partner, Kay Rogness, noting
she didn't come forward with any allegations until "shortly after
Rick made his final buyout payment to her." The Butlers further
said those accusations factored into an adoption process in 1994,
but a court-appointed investigator found Rick "did not break any
laws then or now."
"Edelson PC and the accusers recognized that the prior attacks on
the Butlers were unsuccessful, and that families involved in the
Sports Performance program were among Rick's strongest supporters,"
according to the new lawsuit. "Sports Performance families trusted
their own personal experience with the Butlers over the decades-old
accusations in the media and have continued to send their children
to the club year after year."
The complaint also said Edelson and Mullen filed their lawsuit in
the wake of "the sentencing of Dr. Larry Nassar, the disgraced
former USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor who
sexually abused young athletes in his care."
The Butlers said Mullen's lawsuit and conduct cause them to sell
their home of 20 years in order to fund their legal defense, as
well as move into a complex providing additional security.
"The Butlers continue to face harassment, stalking and threats from
people they have never met," the lawsuit says. "Every day, the
Butlers fear for their safety."
Formal complaints against the Edelson firm include one count of
malicious prosecution and one of abuse of process. The Butlers and
GLV are represented by attorney Danielle D'Ambrose, of Chicago. In
addition to a jury trial, they seek damages in excess of $50,000.
[GN]
EDWARD D. JONES & CO: Wins Bid to Quash Gunderson Subpoena
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD ANDERSON, RAYMOND
KEITHCORUM, and JESSE AND COLLEEN WORTHINGTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO.,
L.P. Case No. 2:18-cv-00714-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Allison Claire entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to
quash.
The Court said, "The general desire to impeach the credibility of
Ms. Rodriguez also does not support discovery of the agreement. The
public record of the Gundersen Litigation appears to be quite full
of ammunition with which to attack Ms. Rodriguez's character or
inquire into her biases, to the extent doing so is permissible
under the rules of evidence. The Plaintiffs have not been able to
articulate how anything in the settlement agreement could reveal
non-redundant information."
In sum, the Plaintiff has not established the relevance of the
settlement agreement.
Gundersen's relationships with the plaintiffs are independent of
his settlement with EDJ in the lawsuit against Ms. Rodriguez, so
defendant's inquiries into the former does not make the latter
relevant. Because the agreement is not relevant, plaintiffs' need
for the information is low and cannot outweigh defendant's interest
in maintaining the confidentiality which it negotiated.
The Defendant has moved to quash a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 third-party
subpoena, and the motion is before the undersigned pursuant to E.D.
Cal. R. 302(c)(1). The Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and defendant
has filed a reply. The matter was heard on a shortened schedule on
June 21, 2023. The court grants defendant's motion.
The case is a class action lawsuit in which plaintiffs Edward
Anderson, Raymond Keith Corum, and Colleen and Jesse Worthington
allege that EDJ, a registered broker-dealer and a fiduciary under
California law, breached its fiduciary duty by failing to conduct
an appropriate account-type suitability analysis before
recommending that the Plaintiffs transfer from commission-based
accounts, through which EDJ is compensated based on commissions per
trade, to more expensive fee-based accounts, through which EDJ is
compensated based on a percentage of the value of assets under
management.
The TAC alleges that Financial Advisor Lisa Rodriguez recommended
the transfers to fee-based accounts. The Plaintiffs had previously
been clients of Dalas Gundersen when he was a financial advisor at
EDJ, and they are currently clients of Mr. Gundersen at another
firm. Neither Ms. Rodriguez nor Mr. Gundersen are parties to the
lawsuit.
The Defendant moves to quash the Gundersen subpoena on grounds that
(1) the settlement is confidential, and
(2) the settlement is irrelevant to the Plaintiffs' sole claim
for
breach of fiduciary duty and to class certification issues.
Edward Jones is a financial services firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NuzKeM at no extra
charge.[CC]
FACEBOOK INC: Plaintiffs Seek Attorneys' Fees, Expenses & Awards
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy
User Profile Litigation, Case No. 3:18-md-02843-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for:
(1) approval of an attorneys' fee award of 25% of the common
fund;
(2) reimbursement of the expenses counsel incurred litigating
this
action; and
(3) service awards of $15,000 for each of the eight Plaintiffs
in
the action.
The parties' $725 million settlement is the largest data-privacy
recovery in history and the largest private settlement Facebook has
ever agreed to. Nothing about this unprecedented result came easily
or quickly. To achieve this recovery, Class Counsel devoted
149,928.65 hours of work and $4,101,608.09 in out-of-pocket
expenses over nearly five years of intense litigation.
Without this work, the Settlement could not have been achieved. As
compensation for their successful efforts, Class Counsel now seek a
fee of 25% of the common fund, equal to their $91,234,005.50
lodestar with a 1.99 multiplier. Four considerations support the
conclusion that this fee is reasonable compensation for Class
Counsel’s successes
and efforts.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 21, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JI3sMk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
David Ko, Esq.
Adele A. Daniel, Esq.
Benjamin Gould, Esq.
Emma M. Wright, Esq.
Daniel Mensher, Esq.
Michael Woerner, Esq.
Matthew Gerend, Esq.
Christopher Springer, Esq.
Eric Fierro, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
dko@kellerrohrback.com
adaniel@kellerrohrback.com
bgould@kellerrohrback.com
ewright@kellerrohrback.com
dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com
mgerend@kellerrohrback.com
cspringer@kellerrohrback.com
efierro@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
Anne K. Davis, Esq.
Matthew S. Melamed, Esq.
Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
adavis@bfalaw.com
mmelamed@bfalaw.com
aornelas@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA NAVARRO, BENJAMIN
KOMITA, JADEN KREKOW, KYLE STEWART, MASON YASKOVIC, THOMAS FRANCIS,
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No.
6:22-cv-01950-CEM-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant files an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
On June 2, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed and served a copy of their
Motion for Class Certification.
Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01, Florida Tech's response to the
Plaintiffs' Motion is presently due on or before June 23, 2023.
Since receiving the Plaintiffs' motion, counsel for the Parties
have engaged in a substantive discussion about the Motion itself,
discovery, and a path forward that may limit the need for the
Court's resources.
Counsel for both parties have conferred and have agreed to extend
Florida Tech an additional 21 days to respond to the Motion,
subject to the Court's approval of the same.
Florida Institute is a private research university in Melbourne,
Florida. The university comprises four academic colleges:
Engineering & Science, Aeronautics, Psychology & Liberal Arts, and
Business
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44bzzfA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey Knight, Esq.
Drew Campbell, Esq.
Kasey Nielsen, Esq.
Matthew Gurbach, Esq.
BRICKER GRAYDON LLP
100 South Third Street
Columbus, OH 43212-4291
Telephone: (614) 227-2300
Facsimile: (614) 227-2390
E-mail: jknight@brickergraydon.com
dcampbell@brickergraydon.com
knielsen@brickergraydon.com
mgurbach@brickergraydon.com
- and -
Richard L. Barry, Esq.
Richard E. Mitchell, Esq.
GRAY | ROBINSON, P.A.
301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400
Orlando, FL 32802
Telephone: (407) 843-8880
Facsimile: (407) 244-5690
E-mail: richard.barry@gray-robinson.com
rick.mitchell@gray-robinson.com
GREENIX HOLDINGS: Seeks to Strike Allegations from Hutt SAC
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Hutt, v. Greenix
Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01108-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order striking any remaining
collective action allegations from the Second Amended Complaint.
The Defendant contends that despite years of discovery, the
Plaintiff cannot carry his burden -- his claims are appropriate, if
at all, for individual treatment only. The the Plaintiff cannot
marshal evidence sufficient to support conditional certification
under the now-outdated conditional certification standard, and the
evidence he cites remains insufficient under the new "strong
likelihood" standard.
Accordingly, the Defendant submits that the Court should decline to
issue notice to the putative opt-in collective and should instead
strike these allegations from the Second Amended Complaint.
The case has been pending since February 28, 2020. The Plaintiff
has previously represented to the Court that he would need to
obtain affidavits from other putative opt-in plaintiffs to
demonstrate that he is similarly situated to this group, yet the
Plaintiff still has not identified any such evidence – indeed,
the Plaintiff has not identified any other opt-in.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44w3TkK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
James E. Davidson, Esq.
Lydia F. Reback, Esq.
ICE MILLER LLP
250 West Street, Suite 700
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 462-2700
Facsimile: (614) 224-3507
E-mail: James.Davidson@icemiller.com
Lydia.Reback@icemiller.com
- and -
Mickell Jimenez, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
222 South Main Street, Suite 2200
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
E-mail: MJimenez@hollandhart.com
GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA: Zeff Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY ZEFF, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
Case No. 3:20-cv-07122-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying the case as class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Greystar which owns and/or operates
residential leased properties in California (or did during the
Class Period), has charged its tenants late fees that violate
California Civil Code Section 1671(d) and the California Unlawful
Competition law.
The Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) that:
1. Certifies this case as a class action for all causes of
action
and claims for monetary relief alleged in the Plaintiff's
First
Amended Complaint.
2. Certifies a "$100 Late Fee Class" defined as:
"All Greystar tenants in California who, from October 13,
2016,
until final judgment, paid at least one $100 late rent fee.
3. Appoints the Plaintiff Zachary Zeff as Class Representative.
4. Appoints the Plaintiff's counsel, Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP,
as
class counsel.
5. Approves the proposed Class Notice submitted herewith, and
orders that it be issued to the proposed Class Members.
6. Grants such other and further relief as the Court deems
appropriate.
The Plaintiff also moves the Court, in the alternative, to certify,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4), the issue of
whether the Defendants late fees charged to the class violate
Section 1671(d), if the Court declines to certify the case as a
class action under Rule 23(b)(3) for all causes of action and
claims for monetary relief.
The case challenges the $100 penalty that the Defendant Greystar
systematically charged to California tenants since October 13,
2016, for late payment of rent. Greystar claims to be the "leader
in rental housing in the United States with 746,820 beds and units
and $23.5 billion in equity under management."
In short, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a class defined as:
"All Greystar tenants in California who, from October 13, 2016,
until final judgment, paid at least one $100 late rent fee."
Greystar offers apartments in locations near shopping, dining, and
workplaces.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pClzwk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
Jordan Belcastro, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
jbelcastro@nicholaslaw.org
GUARDIAN SAVINGS: Class Cert. Discovery Due May 17, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATUM STAMLER, v. GUARDIAN
SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 1:23-cv-00110-MRB-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Stephanie K. Bowman entered an order as follows:
1. Deadline to move to amend pleadings Aug. 4, 2023
and/or add parties:
2. Deadline for the filing of motions Aug. 25, 2023
relative to the pleadings:
3. Discovery deadline: May 17, 2024
4. Deadline to identify plaintiff's Jan. 19, 2024
experts and provide reports:
5. Deadline to identify defendant's March 1, 2024
experts and provide reports:
6. Deadline to identify rebuttal March 29, 2024
experts and provide reports:
7. Deadline for disclosure of April 19, 2024
non-expert (fact) witnesses:
8. Deadline for the filing of the May 17, 2024
Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and appointment
of class counsel:
9. Dispositive motion deadline: June 14, 2024
Guardian Savings is leading home mortgage lender in the Cincinnati
Tri-State area.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rd0Bop at no extra charge.[CC]
HONEYWELL INT'L: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT REID, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., and HONEYWELL FEDERAL MANUFACTURING &
TECHONOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01675-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the
Parties move the Court for an order extending the Plaintiffs'
deadline to file a motion for class certification until 120 days
after the Court rules on the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
-- The Plaintiffs' current deadline to file their Motion for
Class
Certification is currently set for July 21, 2023.
-- Additionally, the Plaintiffs have propounded written discovery
on
the Defendants and sought to take depositions of several
witnesses prior to the July 21, 2023, class certification
Motion
deadline.
Honeywell is a worldwide technology and manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PHIy3H at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
gdesane@wfclaw.com
- and -
Kathryn C. Hopkinson, Esq.
CURRAN ANTONELLI, LLP
400 North Tampa St, 15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (617) 207-8670
Facsimile: (617) 850-9001
E-mail: khopkinson@curranantonelli.com
Secondary Emails: slevy@curranantonelli.com
ethompson@curranantonelli.com
filings@curranantonelli.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Anne Marie Estevez, Esq.
Joseph D. Magrisso, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131-3075
Telephone: (305) 415-3330
Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
E-mail: anne.estevez@morganlewis.com
joseph.magrisso@morganlewis.com
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 3
announced that purchasers or acquirers of Icahn Enterprises L.P.
(NASDAQ: IEP) securities between August 2, 2018 and May 9, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Icahn Enterprises class action
lawsuit charges Icahn Enterprises, Carl C. Icahn, as well as other
top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The first-filed complaint is captioned Okaro v. Icahn
Enterprises L.P., No. 23-cv-21773 (S.D. Fla.). A subsequently filed
case is captioned Levine v. Icahn Enterprises L.P., No. 23-cv-22009
(S.D. Fla.).
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Icahn Enterprises class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-icahn-enterprises-l-p-class-action-lawsuit-iep.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Icahn Enterprises is a master limited partnership
holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in several business
segments, including: Investment, Energy, Automotive, Food
Packaging, Real Estate, Home Fashion, and Pharma.
The Icahn Enterprises class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Icahn Enterprises was inflating
its net asset value; (ii) Icahn Enterprises was using money taken
in from new investors to pay out dividends to old investors; and
(iii) as a result, Icahn Enterprises would become the subject of
criminal and/or regulatory scrutiny.
On May 2, 2023, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that Icahn Enterprises' "last reported
indicative year-end [net asset value] of $5.6 billion is inflated
by at least 22%." The report also claimed that Icahn Enterprises
operates a "ponzi-like economic structure[]" and "has been using
money taken in from new investors to pay out dividends to old
investors." On this news, the price of Icahn Enterprises shares
declined nearly 20%.
Then, on May 10, 2023, Icahn Enterprises revealed that the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York contacted
Icahn Enterprises on May 3, 2023 seeking production of information
relating to Icahn Enterprises and certain of its affiliates'
"corporate governance, capitalization, securities offerings,
dividends, valuation, marketing materials, due diligence and other
materials." Icahn Enterprises claimed it is "cooperating with the
request" and is "providing documents in response to the voluntary
request for information." Icahn Enterprises further reported that
it was taking a $226 million charge related to Auto Plus, which
Hindenburg Research had identified as an overvalued holding. On
this news, the price of Icahn Enterprises shares declined more than
15%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Icahn Enterprises securities during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff of the Icahn Enterprises class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Icahn Enterprises class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Icahn Enterprises
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff of the Icahn Enterprises class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS
Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more
than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 - the third year in a row
Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those three years alone,
Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more
than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest
plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have
obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in
history, including the largest securities class action recovery
ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit
the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Bid to Dismiss Genc 2nd Amended Complaint Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OZCAN GENC, HASAN GOKCE,
and SÜLEYMAN KOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC and
IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD., Case No.
1:22-cv-00002 (D.N. Mar. I.), the Hon. Judge Ramona V. Manglona
entered an order denying motion to dismiss second amended
complaint.
-- The Court denies IPI's motion to dismiss the SAC with
prejudice
because the Plaintiffs' SAC alleges sufficient facts to
plausibly
show that IPI discriminated against them and the proposed
class
of 107 Turkish H-2B workers.
Rather, the Plaintiffs assert that the pay difference was not due
to a difference in qualifications, but because of discrimination.
The Court finds that this additional information supports the
finding of plausibility of discrimination as it is strong
circumstantial and anecdotal evidence of how IPI paid the Turkish
H-2B workers substantially less than H-2B workers recruited from
Italy and Taiwan.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that IPI paid the "Taiwanese
and Italian workers at a wage rate significantly higher -- as much
as three times higher than the Plaintiffs and members of the
class."
Previously, the Court granted IPI's motions to dismiss the original
complaint and the first amended complaint (FAC), but granted the
Plaintiffs leave to amend both times.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xv0two at no extra charge.[CC]
INJURED WORKERS: Ex-Customers Can Pursue Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Sams, writing for Claims Journal, reports that former customers
of Injured Workers Pharmacy whose personal information was stolen
by hackers and allegedly used to file a fake tax return may pursue
a class-action lawsuit against the company, a panel of the 1st
District Court of Appeal ruled on June 30, reversing a trial court
decision.
The appellate panel said that Alexsis Webb and Marsclette Charley
had plausibly alleged they were injured by a 2021 data breach that
exposed their personal information. Both were clients of IWP in
January 2021, when hackers breached the company's computer network,
exposing the personally identifiable information of 75,000
customers.
"We do not hold that individuals face an imminent and substantial
future risk in every case in which their information is compromised
in a data breach. But on the facts alleged here, the complaint has
plausibly demonstrated such a risk," the opinion says.
Injured Workers' Pharmacy, a Massachusetts company that mails
medications prescribed for work injuries and illnesses to workers'
compensation claimants, discovered it had been hacked in May 2021,
four months after the actual data breach. The company admitted that
the hackers compromised multiple employee email accounts and had
unfettered access to its network during the months the breach was
undetected.
IWP did not begin notifying customers of the hack until February
2022, and even then did not reveal the scope of the breach. The
company encouraged its customers to monitor their account
statements and credit reports for suspicious activity, but did not
offer to pay for credit monitoring and identity protection services
to the impacted patients.
Webb, a resident of Ohio, alleges that the "cybercriminals" behind
the hack used her information to file a fake tax return, which
forced her to expend personal time to deal with the Internal
Revenue Service and caused "anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, and
fear." Charley, a Georgia resident, says she is "experiencing
feelings of rage and anger, anxiety, sleep disruption, stress,
fear, and physical pain."
In May 2022, the two woman filed a putative class-action lawsuit in
the US District Court for Massachusetts seeking damages for
negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of
privacy and breach of fiduciary duty. They also asked for an
injunction from the court requiring IWP to improve its
cybersecurity and ordering the company to cease its unfair
practices.
The lawsuit requested certification of a class of United States
residents whose personally identifiable information was compromised
by the data breach.
District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns dismissed the complaint,
finding that Webb and Charley lacked standing because they failed
to state an injury in fact. The judge found that Webb did not
sufficiently allege a connection between the data breach and the
fake tax return filed in her name. The judge found that the
allegation of potential misuse of personal information was not
sufficiently imminent to establish an injury in fact.
The appellate panel disagreed. The panel noted that in a 2021
decision, TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the US Supreme Court ruled
that plaintiffs must demonstrate they have suffered a "concrete
injury" in order to assert a claim for damages by a data breach.
"Intangible harms can also be concrete, including when they 'are
injuries with a close relationship to harms traditionally
recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts,'
such as ‘reputational harms, disclosure of private information,
and intrusion upon seclusion,'" the opinion says, citing a
different Supreme Court ruling.
The panel said Webb's allegations that her information was used to
file a false tax return suffice to state a concrete injury.
Charley's allegation of a material risk of harm due to potential
misuse of her personal information was also sufficient to give her
standing, the opinion says.
"Plaintiffs face a real risk of misuse of their information
following a data breach when their information is deliberately
taken by thieves intending to use the information to their
financial advantage -- i.e., exposed in a targeted attack rather
than inadvertently," the opinion says.
The panel reversed the District Court's decision that Webb and
Charley lacked standing, but affirmed its ruling not to issue the
requested injunctions. The panel said the plaintiffs failed to show
how the injunctions would redress their injuries. [GN]
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Oct. 27 Filing of Class Cert Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
v. Intuitive Surgical Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties agreed subject to the Court's approval, to the
following amended briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion:
Event Proposed Date
Joint CMC Statement due September 28, 2023
Case Management Conference October 5, 2023
Deadline to file motion for class October 27, 2023
certification
Deadline to file opposition to motion December 6, 2023
for class certification
Deadline to file reply in support of January 12, 2024
motion for class certification
Intuitive Surgical is an American corporation that develops,
manufactures, and markets robotic products designed to improve
clinical outcomes of patients through minimally invasive surgery.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JJH0lZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
- and -
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
Zachary Glubiak, Esq.
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com
zglubiak@cohenmilstein.com
jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
blandau@hausfeld.com
jkenney@hausfeld.com
- and -
Samuel Maida, Esq.
Brent W. Landau, Esq.
Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite
3200 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: smaida@hausfeld.com
blandau@hausfeld.com
jkenney@hausfeld.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allen Ruby, Esq.
ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
15559 Union Ave. #138
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: (408) 477-9690
E-mail: allen@allenruby.com
- and -
Karen Hoffman Lent, Esq.
Michael H. Menitove, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
Facsimile: (212) 735-2040
E-mail: karen.lent@skadden.com
michael.menitove@skadden.com
- and -
Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
Sonya Winner, Esq.
Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq.
Isaac D. Chaput, Esq.
Andrew Lazerow, Esq.
Ashley E. Bass, Esq.
John Kendrick, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com
swinner@cov.com
clannin@cov.com
ichaput@cov.com
alazerow@cov.com
abass@cov.com
jkendrick@cov.com
ITS LOGISTICS: Wage-and-Hour Class Action Settlement Rejected
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ufonobong Umanah, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that ITS
Logistics' proposed class action settlement with a truck driver was
rejected for recovering too little from the wrongs he alleged.
Keith Guthrie claimed that ITS underpaid him and other drivers and
refused to reimburse expenses or provide meal and rest breaks. But
when the parties submitted a preliminary accord, a magistrate judge
in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California
found the proposed $365,000 settlement -- no more that 10% of
potential damages -- was too small, appearing like "a lump sum that
reflected what Defendant was willing to pay at that time. [GN]
JEFFREY SEARLS: Wins Bid to Decertify Class in Onosamba-Ohindo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNIOR ONOSAMBA-OHINDO, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. JEFFREY
SEARLS, in his official capacity as the Acting Administrator of the
Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, Case No. 1:20-cv-00290-EAW
(W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth a. Wolford entered an order:
-- granting the Respondent's motion for decertification; and
-- denying as moot Class Petitioner's motion for summary
judgment.
The Pre-Hearing Class is decertified, and Class Petitioner's
remaining individual claims are dismissed without prejudice as
moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close
the case.
The Court finds that decertification of the Pre-Hearing Class is
appropriate. Based on that determination and the Court’s
resolution of the parties' prior motions, the only claims remaining
in this action are the individual claims made by Class Petitioner.
Class Petitioner seeks summary judgment on the class-wide due
process claims and declaratory relief.
The Petitioner Onosamba-Ohindo and former petitioner/plaintiff
Antonio Lopez Agustin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 and a complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief, purportedly on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated.
The September 2020 D&O also granted in part, denied in part, and
reserved decision in part on Petitioners' motion for class
certification and certified a Pre-Hearing Class, defined as
follows:
"All individuals currently detained at the Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility under section 1226(a) who will have a custody
hearing before the Batavia or Buffalo Immigration Courts."
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PE05d5 at no extra charge.[CC]
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd (NYSE: JKS) resulting
from allegations that JinkoSolar may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased JinkoSolar securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16025 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 9, 2023, before trading hours, the
Jacksonville Daily Record published an article entitled "Federal
agents issue search warrant at JinkoSolar plant in Cecil Commerce
Center: Homeland Security said it is part of an ongoing
investigation; the factory, whose parent company is in China,
opened in Jacksonville in 2018." The Jacksonville Daily Record
reported that "[a]ccording to the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
federal agents were assisting the Department of Homeland Security
with the execution of a search warrant." Further, the article cited
WJXT News4Jax, stating that JinkoSolar is one of several companies
under investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department for
circumventing trade rules by sending products to other countries
before moving them to the U.S.
On this news, JinkoSolar's American depositary receipt ("ADR")
price fell $3.91 per ADR, or 8%, to close at $43.47 per ADR on May
9, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
JLM DECORATING: Bid to Extend Time to File Class Cert Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez v. JLM
Decorating, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02969 (S.D.N.Y., Filed
April 10, 2020), the Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn entered an order
denying letter motion for extension of time to file.
On February 24, 2023, the Court ordered that "any motion for class
certification and any motion to amend the complaint under Rule 16
shall be filed no later than March 31, 2023" and stated "that these
dates will not be adjourned, and extensions will not be granted."
The Plaintiffs failed to move for class certification at that time
and never sought an extension of the deadline to do so. the
Plaintiffs' current application seeking leave to file a motion for
class certification fails to establish good cause under Rule 16 --
or any reason at all -- why the Plaintiffs should be permitted to
file such motion at this late stage.
The Court's July 7, 2023, deadline to propose a briefing schedule
on any motion for summary judgment remains.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
JLM Decorating is a full-service painting, wallcovering &
decorative firm performing in the Tri-State and Florida commercial
markets.[CC]
JP MORGAN: Completion of Class Discovery Due Jan. 11, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTAR ROWE, v. JP MORGAN
CHASE & COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-01704-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a preliminary
pretrial order as follows:
-- Any initial disclosures shall be June 30, 2023
made by:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or Aug. 1, 2023
to join additional parties shall be
filed by:
-- All discovery shall be completed by: Jan. 11, 2024
-- Any dispositive motion shall be filed March 1, 2024
by:
-- Primary expert reports must be Oct. 12, 2023
produced by:
-- The Plaintiff shall make a settlement Jan. 18, 2024
demand by:
The Defendants shall respond by: Jan 25, 2024
JPMorgan Chase is an American multinational financial services
firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46wUdIN at no extra charge.[CC]
KNIGHT HAWK: Court Adopts Proposed Sched & Discovery Order in Dye
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY DYE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. KNIGHT HAWK COAL,
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01329-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David
W. Dugan entered an order adopting joint report and proposed
scheduling and discovery order.
-- Depositions upon oral examination, interrogatories, requests
for
documents, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed
unless on order of the Court.
-- Disclosures or discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a) are to be filed with the Court only to the extent
required
by the final pretrial order, other Court order, or if a dispute
arises over the disclosure or discovery and the matter has been
set for briefing.
-- The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint
Report
by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date
if
such modification would impact (1) the date of any court
appearance, (2) the deadline for completing the mandatory
mediation session or the mandatory mediation process (if
applicable), (3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or
(4)
the deadline for filing dispositive motions.
Knight Hawk is a mining & metals company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/445ezHw at no extra charge.[CC]
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Moving Briefs Due Oct. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hobbs, et al., v.
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-01421-JLR-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart D. Aaron
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Moving Briefs: October 17, 2023, or 45 days
after the Court rules on any
discovery disputes raised on
or
before September 1, 2023,
whichever is later
-- Opposition Briefs: 45 days after moving briefs
are filed
-- Reply Briefs: 21 days after opposition
briefs
are filed
Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding
company based in Phoenix, Arizona.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44ju3Hm at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian D. Murphy, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0015
Telephone: (212) 653-8700
Facsimile: (212) 653-8701
E-mail: bmurphy@sheppardmullin.com
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Parties in Hobbs Seek Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hobbs et al v.
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-01421-JLR-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter a scheduling order as follows:
-- Moving Briefs: October 17, 2023, or 45 days
after the Court rules on any
discovery disputes raised on
or
before September 1, 2023,
whichever is later
-- Opposition Briefs: 45 days after moving briefs
are filed
-- Reply Briefs: 21 days after opposition
briefs
are filed
The Court previously issued an Order requiring that depositions of
Swift's Terminal Leaders and Driver Leaders be completed within 75
days of the Hon. Judge Rochon's issuance of an order resolving the
Parties' cross motions regarding class certification.
The Parties observe that Judge Rochon's Order of June 13, 2023,
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without
prejudice, subject to renewal. Accordingly, the Parties request
that the date to complete the foregoing depositions be adjourned
until a date 75 days after the forthcoming motions regarding class
certification are fully resolved.
Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding
company based in Phoenix, Arizona.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 20, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44jtZr6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian D. Murphy, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0015
Telephone: (212) 653-8700
Facsimile: (212) 653-8701
E-mail: bmurphy@sheppardmullin.com
LJUBLJANA INTER: Court Continues Deadline to Add More Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON KLEIN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Ljubljana Inter Auto d.o.o., a Slovenian Corporation, Dr. Ing.
h.c.F. PORSCHE AG, a German corporation, and PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-10079-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order granting Klein's unopposed motion to continue
deadline to add additional Plaintiffs.
The Parties' joint stipulation to continue all future dates in the
litigation is approved.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44tNUnv at no extra charge.[CC]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Nov. 10, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRIZIA BERG, et al.,
individually and on behalf others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, et al, Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-PD (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order approving joint
stipulation to modify scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline to file Motion for Class Certification: Nov. 10,
2023
-- Opposition deadline (Motion for Class Dec. 22,
2023
Certification)
-- Reply deadline (Motion for Class Jan. 19,
2024
Certification)
-- Hearing on Class Certification Motion: Feb. 2,
2024
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off (includes Feb. 9,
2024
hearing of discovery motions)
-- Motion Cut-Off (filing deadline): Feb. 16,
2024
-- Last hearing date for dispositive April 12,
2024
Motions:
-- Initial Expert Disclosure & Report April 3,
2024
Deadline:
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure & Report May 1, 2024
Deadline:
-- Expert Discovery CutOff (includes hearing May 14,
2024
of discovery motions):
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pqBhe5 at no extra charge.[CC]
LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Upperco Sues Over Female Officers' Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER UPPERCO, MELISSA ST. PIERRE, and KIMBERLY BAILEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS and LUCAS COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01283 (N.D. Ohio,
June 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ohio
Revised Code, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
Defendants for sex discrimination and sexual harassment in
employment at the Lucas County Correctional Center. The harassment
to which the Plaintiffs and class members have been subjected is
egregious. Male detainees routinely: (a) expose their genitals to
them; (b) engage in exhibitionist masturbation in front of them;
(c) subject them to a barrage of sexualized epithets, insults,
comments, and gestures; and (d) threaten sexual violence against
them. Male correctional officers are rarely, if ever, subjected to
this harassment. The Defendants are aware of this harassment
because among other things, it is open and obvious, and female
employees have discussed it with management. By failing to take
steps to curtail the harassment, the Defendants have enabled the
harassment, says the suit.
Lucas County Board of County Commissioners is a political
subdivision of the State of Ohio.
Lucas County Sheriff's Office is a sheriff's department in Toledo,
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nancy Grim, Esq.
NANCY GRIM, LLC
P.O. Box 108
Kent, OH 44240
Telephone: (330) 678-6595
Facsimile: (844) 270-7608
E-mail: nancy.grim@nancygrimlaw.net
- and -
Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq.
BURAKIEWICZ & DEPRIEST, PLLC
5017 V. Street NW
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (240) 751-6583
E-mail: hburakiewicz@bdlawdc.com
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 29, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PASSION GABOUREL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a LENSCRAFTERS, an Ohio corporation;
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a business entity of unknown
form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter
entered an order denying as moot the plaintiff's ex parte
application for order granting continuance of the Plaintiff's
deadline to file motion for class Certification.
-- Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing April 24, 2025
on Motions in Limine at least 12
days before trial:
-- Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Sept. 8, 2022
Pleadings /Add Parties:
-- Deadline for the Plaintiff to file April 29, 2024
motion for class certification:
-- Deadline for the Defendant's July 5, 2024
Opposition to MFCC:
-- Deadline for the Plaintiff's Aug. 1, 2024
Reply in Support of MFCC:
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off Dec. 30, 2024
(no later than deadline for
filing dispositive motions):
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial): Jan. 6, 2025
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Jan. 21, 2025
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Feb. 6, 2025
Luxottica of America is an eyewear supplier.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44nhb2Z at no extra charge.[CC]
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Info, Richard Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY RICHARD and JOSHUA BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH
AMERICA, INC., d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, Defendant, Case No.
0:23-cv-61238-RLR (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally
identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated patients stored within its system following a data breach
between February 26 and March 7, 2023. The Defendant also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the
Plaintiffs and Class members were compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
Managed Care of North America, Inc., doing business as MCNA Dental,
is a provider of dental plans, with its principal place of business
in Miramar, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: (813) 786-8622
E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
MANPOWER US: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 12, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES KEOPIMPHA, an
individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MANPOWER US INC., a Delaware Corporation;
MANPOWERGROUP US, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation; HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-02833-RGK-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order continuing notion for class
certification filing deadline, trial, and pre-trial deadlines, as
follows:
1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification filing
deadline
is continued from July 13, 2023, to January 12, 2024.
2. The previously set trial date and pre-trial deadlines are
vacated and post-mediation status conference Court to re-set
a
trial date and pre-trial deadlines is set for November 6,
2023
at 9:00 a.m.
Manpower provides employment services to a wide variety of
customers.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NvNCFF at no extra charge.[CC]
MARRIOT INT'L: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Naprstek
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUBOS NAPRSTEK, v. MARRIOT
INTERNATIONAL, INC. and RESTAURANT AND CLUB EMPLOYEES AND
BARTENDERS UNION LOCAL No.6 AFL CIO, Case No. 1:21-cv-08560-CM-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered a general pretrial
management order as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those relating
to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss
or
for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for
summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her
Individual Practices, available on the Court's website at
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
-- The parties shall promptly meet and confer in accordance with
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(f), and, by June 30, 2023, file a Report of Rule
26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case Management Plan For Pro Se
Case,
via ECF, in conformance with the procedures in Section 1 of
Judge
Cave's individual Practices.
Marriott International is an American multinational company that
operates, franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel,
residential and timeshare properties.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XAoLoS at no extra charge.[CC]
MASA SUSHI: Chen Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUJIE CHEN, CHENLI LIN,
XIA LIN, QING CHEN, and BAOZHU WEI, individually and on their own
behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, v.
MASA SUSHI HIBACHI AND BAR PA LLC d/b/a MASA SUSHI HIBACHI AND BAR,
ZHENGGUAN CHI and FANNY GUNAWAN, Case No. 5:22-cv-05206-KNS (E.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Authorizing this action to proceed as a Fair Labor Standards
Act
("FLSA") collective action for Masa Sushi's wage and hour
violations pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. Certifying the FLSA collective action class defined as:
"Any and all individuals currently or formerly employed by
the
Defendants within the United States as nonexempt employee at
any
time from December 28, 2019, to the present;
3. Appointing the Plaintiffs as the collective action
representatives for the FLSA class; and their counsel of
record
as Collective Action Counsel for the FLSA class;
4. Directing Masa Sushi to, within ten days of entry of this
Order,
provide the FLSA Class Counsel a computer-readable file
containing the names (last name first), last known physical
addresses, last known email addresses, telephone numbers,
WhatsApp account, WeChat ID and/or Facebook usernames (if
applicable), and dates of employment, of all putative
collective
action members employed by Masa Sushi since December 28,
2019,
through the date of this Order;
5. Authorizing conditional certification notice to be
disseminated
to the FLSA class by U.S. Mail and e-mail;
6. Deeming Opt-in the Plaintiff's Consent Forms "filed" on the
dates they are postmarked or stamped as received by the FLSA
Class Counsel (to the extent consent forms are returned via
email, fax or text message) (excluding those who opted in
prior
to Court-supervised Notice being sent); and
7. Permitting the FLSA Class Counsel to file opt-in forms weekly
on
a rolling basis and no later than 14 days after the end of
the
opt-in period.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 21, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44qVQ92 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jian Hang, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
MAZDA MOTOR: Farina Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of Guthrie Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCIS F. FARINA, On behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.,
KEFFER MAZDA, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-50-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), Judge Max O.
Cogburn, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, grants the Joint Motion to
Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer, filed by Defendants Mazda Motor of
America, Inc., and Keffer Mazda to the extent that the matter is
stayed pending resolution of the Guthrie class action.
Farina brought the putative class action on behalf of himself and a
putative class of current and former owners and lessees of 2021
Mazda CX-30, CX-5, CX-9, Mazda3, and Mazda6 vehicles (the Subject
Vehicles), against Defendants Mazda Motor of America, Inc., d/b/a
Mazda North American Operations (MNAO), and Lake Norman Auto Mall,
LLC, d/b/a Keffer Mazda, on behalf of itself and a putative
defendant class of similarly situated Mazda dealerships -- i.e., a
"defendant class action." The Plaintiff has alleged various causes
of action arising out of an alleged defect in his vehicle and the
Subject Vehicles, which he claims causes them to consume an
excessive amount of engine oil. Through the action, the Plaintiff
seeks to represent a nationwide class.
The Plaintiff's is the third such putative class-action complaint
brought based on the same alleged defect in the same vehicles on
behalf of the same putative class. The first-filed and
substantially similar class-action matter Gary Guthrie et al. v.
Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01055-DOC-DFM has
been underway in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California for over a year -- with a motion to dismiss filed,
argued, and under advisement before that court, and with a
mediation session having taken place.
The Defendants move to dismiss or stay this action until Guthrie is
fully litigated or otherwise resolved, pursuant to the
well-recognized "first-to-file" rule. Alternatively, they ask the
Court to transfer the action to the Central District of California
for potential consolidation and resolution of the Plaintiff's
claims with the Guthrie matter.
The Guthrie action was filed in the Superior Court of California,
Orange County on April 19, 2022, and removed to the Central
District on May 25, 2022, under Case No. 8:22-cv-01055-DOC-DFM. The
Guthrie plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on July 18,
2022, and MNAO moved to dismiss that iteration of the complaint on
Aug. 15, 2022. The currently operative Second Amended Complaint
(SAC) was filed on Oct. 31, 2022, against MNAO on behalf of the
individual plaintiffs and a putative class of past and present
purchasers and lessees of 2021 and 2022 Mazda CX-30, 2021 CX-5,
2021 CX-9, 2021 and 2022 Mazda3, and 2021 Mazda6 models (the
Guthrie Subject Vehicles).
The Guthrie Plaintiffs alleged various causes of action arising out
of an alleged defect in the vehicles, including claims for breach
of implied and express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act (MMWA) (nationwide), fraudulent concealment (nationwide), and
unjust enrichment (nationwide), and claims under various states'
consumer protection statutes. These claims are based entirely on
the underlying factual allegations that (1) the Guthrie Subject
Vehicles contain defective valve stem seals that allow engine oil
to leak, which causes the Class Vehicles to consume an excessive
amount of engine oil in between regular oil change intervals,
places the Class Vehicles at an increased risk of engine failure,
and causes to damages to the Class Vehicles' engines; (2) MNAO "has
long known" about the defect, but has refused to provide an
adequate repair; (3) MNAO has concealed the defect from class
members both at the time of sale and repair and thereafter.
On Nov. 15, 2022, Brian Heinz filed a second putative class action
against MNAO on behalf of past and present purchasers and lessees
of the same 2021 vehicle models defined as the Guthrie Subject
Vehicles. As in Guthrie, the Heinz complaint asserted putative
nationwide and California sub-class claims for breach of express
warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations
of consumer protection statutes.
The Heinz complaint alleged -- similarly to Guthrie -- that (1) the
same 2021 vehicles contained a defect with the valve stem seal
which caused them to consume an excessive amount of engine oil
under normal operation, which may cause their engines to
unexpectedly fail while in operation; (2) Mazda has known about the
defect but has failed to provide an adequate repair; and (3) Mazda
concealed the defect from class members at the time of sale and
repair. Both the Guthrie and Heinz complaints named MNAO as
defendant, involved the same putative class vehicles, referred to
the same Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) issued by MNAO, and
sought damages, statutory and civil penalties, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs, among other forms of relief.
On Jan. 28, 2023, Plaintiff Farina filed a third class action
against MNAO. His original complaint alleged three causes of
action: an MMWA breach of warranty claim based on his vehicle's New
Vehicle Limited Warranty (NVLW); a claim for "civil conspiracy";
and a claim for declaratory judgment. The Defendants initially
jointly moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer the action on March 24,
2023 pursuant to the first-to-file rule, but Plaintiff subsequently
filed the currently operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on
May 2, 2023. The Plaintiff's FAC revised his MMWA claim to be based
on his vehicle's emissions warranties and added Clean Air Act
claims.
The FAC is brought on behalf of past and present purchasers and
lessees of 2021 Mazda3, 2021 Mazda6, 2021 CX-30, 2021 CX-5, and
2021 CX-9 models -- in other words, the same putative vehicle class
as in Guthrie and Heinz. As in Guthrie, the Farina FAC asserts
putative nationwide class claims for breach of implied and express
warranty under the MMWA, and the Guthrie class vehicles entirely
subsume the putative class vehicles in the Farina FAC.
There are three variations between the Farina FAC and the Guthrie
complaint (and the Heinz complaint). First, the Farina FAC now
alleges MMWA breach of warranty claims based on the vehicles'
emissions warranties, rather than the general NVLW. Second, the
Farina FAC adds as an additional defendant Plaintiff Farina's
dealer, Keffer Mazda, and seeks to certify a defendant-dealership
class of all Mazda dealers nationwide. Third, the Farina FAC
asserts three additional bases for relief: "civil conspiracy,"
declaratory judgment, and claims under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 7401 et seq.
However, under every additional theory -- as well as the claims
under the MMWA -- Farina's claims are based entirely on the same
core underlying factual allegations as those presented in Guthrie
(and Heinz): that (1) the Subject Vehicles "contain defective valve
stem seals" that cause excessive engine oil consumption, which
places the Class Vehicles at an increased risk of engine failure,
and causes damage to the putative class vehicles; (2) MNAO has
"long known" about the defect, but has purportedly refused to
provide an adequate repair; and (3) MNAO concealed the alleged
defect and its effects from class members both at the time of sale
and repair and thereafter.
The Farina FAC only adds allegations with respect to the same
underlying factual issues, e.g., that the defendant class of
dealerships had "conspired" to conceal the alleged defect at the
behest of MNAO and has also refused to provide a repair in the
Subject Vehicles, that the alleged defect violates additional
warranties, or that MNAO has failed to report the alleged defect as
required under the Clean Air Act.
The Defendants contend that the Court should dismiss, stay, or
transfer this action under the well-established "first-to-file"
rule as recognized in the Fourth Circuit. Under the first-to-file
rule, a district court may dismiss, stay, or transfer a suit when a
similar lawsuit has been filed and is pending in a federal forum.
Fourth Circuit courts apply a two-step inquiry to determine if the
first-to-file rule applies. First, courts determine if the actions
are sufficiently similar, looking to three factors: (1) the
chronology of the filings; (2) the similarity of the parties; and
(3) the similarity of the issues at stake. Second, if the court
determines the actions are sufficiently similar, it then determines
if an equitable exception nevertheless applies to bar application
of the rule -- namely, the Fourth Circuit determines whether, where
the first-to-file rule otherwise applies, the "balance of
convenience" nevertheless counsels against its application.
Judge Cogburn finds that all three factors in step one indicate
that the actions are sufficiently similar to warrant stay or
dismissal of the action, or, in the alternative, transfer.
Moreover, no exception applies under step two. First, the Plaintiff
will not be harmed by a stay. Second, a stay is appropriate based
on the hardship and inequity that MNAO would face by having to
expend time and expenses defending claims that are largely if not
entirely duplicative in separate venues. Third, the interests of
judicial economy favor a stay, which would avoid duplicative
litigation and prevent the same set of facts from being litigated
in two separate forums. Moreover, even if Guthrie does not resolve
every question of fact and law in the Plaintiff's action, at a
minimum, resolution in Guthrie would substantially settle many and
simplify the rest.
Thus, the Joint Motion to Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer, filed by
Defendants Mazda Motor of America, Inc. and Keffer Mazda is granted
to the extent that this matter is stayed pending resolution of the
Guthrie class action. The parties will notify the Court when the
Guthrie proceedings have concluded and whether the stay will be
lifted.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/45hj3ahx from Leagle.com.
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Courtyard v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Courtyard at Amwell II,
LLC et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-06693 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 4, 2012), the Hon. Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7,
2023
of Defendants rolling production of
all document discovery relating to the
Upstream Issues and class certification
in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including April 4,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024
on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for
Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the
OTC class with respect to the Foreign
Defendants, Deadline to file motions to
exclude experts concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
-- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10,
2023
if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and
class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23,
2023
testimony abroad concerning the Upstream
Issues or class certification in the OTC
Action:
-- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19,
2024
interrogatories and RFAs concerning the
Upstream Issues or class certification in
The OTC action:
-- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024
concerning the Upstream Issues or class
certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream
Issues and class certification in the
OTC action:
-- Deadline for parties to serve April 19,
2024
opening expert reports concerning
the Upstream Issues and OTC class
certification:
-- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024
Expert reports concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
The Courtyard case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262.
The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local
transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that
the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments
are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint
demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions
already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters
in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NWqkKM at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Green Pond v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 33-35 Green Pond Road
Associates, LLC, v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-05822 (S.D.N.Y., Filed July 30, 2012), the Hon. Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7,
2023
of Defendants rolling production of
all document discovery relating to the
Upstream Issues and class certification
in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including April 4,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024
on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for
Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the
OTC class with respect to the Foreign
Defendants, Deadline to file motions to
exclude experts concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
-- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10,
2023
if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and
class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23,
2023
testimony abroad concerning the Upstream
Issues or class certification in the OTC
Action:
-- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19,
2024
interrogatories and RFAs concerning the
Upstream Issues or class certification in
The OTC action:
-- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024
concerning the Upstream Issues or class
certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream
Issues and class certification in the
OTC action:
-- Deadline for parties to serve April 19,
2024
opening expert reports concerning
the Upstream Issues and OTC class
certification:
-- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024
Expert reports concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
The Green Pond case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262.
The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local
transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that
the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments
are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint
demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions
already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters
in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CUQ3gb at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Philadelphia v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Philadelphia, et
al., v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08557
(S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 30, 2015), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice
Buchwald entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7,
2023
of Defendants rolling production of
all document discovery relating to the
Upstream Issues and class certification
in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including April 4,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13,
2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues
and class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024
on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for
Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the
OTC class with respect to the Foreign
Defendants, Deadline to file motions to
exclude experts concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
-- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10,
2023
if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and
class certification in the OTC action:
-- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23,
2023
testimony abroad concerning the Upstream
Issues or class certification in the OTC
Action:
-- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19,
2024
interrogatories and RFAs concerning the
Upstream Issues or class certification in
The OTC action:
-- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024
concerning the Upstream Issues or class
certification in the OTC action:
-- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024
depositions) concerning the Upstream
Issues and class certification in the
OTC action:
-- Deadline for parties to serve April 19,
2024
opening expert reports concerning
the Upstream Issues and OTC class
certification:
-- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024
Expert reports concerning the Upstream
Issues and OTC class certification:
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
The Philadelphia case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262.
The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local
transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that
the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments
are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint
demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions
already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters
in Manhattan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pwOQZs at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2918: Class Cert. Hearing Set for Sept. 19 in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension
Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order that the
case is continued to Sept. 19, 2023, for hearing on:
-- End-User Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion
-- Reseller Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion
-- The Defendants' Motion to Strike Declaration of Janet S. Netz
-- Defendants' motion to Exclude Expert Report of Michael
Williams
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O93j7z at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William V. Reiss, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1230
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 693-0700
Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com
- and -
Victoria Sims, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
LARSON • KING, LLP
30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 312-6518
Facsimile: (651) 789-4818
E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 739-5860
Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
E-mail: clay.everett@morganlewis.com
- and -
Mark G. Weiss, Esq.
BAKER MCKENZIE LLP
815 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 835-6260
Facsimile: (202) 416-7177
E-mail: mark.weiss@bakermckenzie.com
- and -
Craig Y. Lee, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
2200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 419-2114
Facsimile: (202) 778-2201
E-mail: craiglee@huntonak.com
MDL 2984: Must Oppose Class Certification by July 17
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Folgers Coffee Marketing Litigation
Case No. 4:21-md-02984-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips
entered a scheduling and discovery order as follows:
The Court recently addressed scheduling and other case management
issues for this multidistrict litigation (MDL), and, in compliance
with the Court's direction, the parties have now filed a Joint
Statement Regarding Proposed Deadlines.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), and
upon consideration of the parties' views, the Court establishes the
following schedule:
-- The Defendants' deadline to file an opposition to the
Plaintiffs'
pending Motion for Class Certification, is July 17, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in support of their
pending Motion for Class Certification, is August 14, 2023.
-- Marcia Nupp shall file directly in this Court an additional
stand-alone complaint that alleges only claims under New York
law
for a putative New York-based class (New York Complaint) no
later
than June 22, 2023.
-- The Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the New
York
Complaint no later than July 24, 2023. If the Defendants file
a
motion challenging the New York Complaint, then the
Plaintiff's
deadline to file an opposition is August 23, 2023, and the
Defendants’ deadline to file a reply is September 22, 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r57A2w at no extra charge.[CC]
MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Subframe Rust
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Mercedes subframe class action lawsuit alleges rust forces owners
to pay huge sums of money due to corrosion that begins inside and
travels outside, making it difficult for Mercedes dealers to
diagnose the rust in a timely fashion.
The 550-page subframe lawsuit was filed by owners who assert it can
cost up to $7,000 to replace a corroded Mercedes-Benz subframe.
According to the class action, these vehicles are prone to failures
of the subframes due to premature corrosion.
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz C-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz E-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz G-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz SL-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz SLC-Class
Hundreds of thousands of Mercedes vehicles are allegedly prone to
subframe rust so severe the Mercedes subframes can fail while
driving.
The plaintiffs assert the subframe corrosion is a problem Mercedes
has known about for years, yet the automaker has continued to force
owners to pay thousands of dollars for subframe replacements, all
so those owners can drive safe vehicles.
In addition, the Mercedes class action alleges dealerships tell
owners that technicians know about the subframe corrosion and that
rust is a common problem with the vehicles.
Mercedes Subframe Class Action Is Allegedly a "Shotgun Pleading"
According to the Mercedes-Benz subframe lawsuit, the plaintiffs
were aware Mercedes was offering a subframe extended warranty to
customers. But the class action alleges the rear subframe extended
warranty fails to warn customers of the real dangers associated
with subframe rust.
The Mercedes subframe extended warranty also offers customers
reimbursements for past repairs, but the plaintiffs sued by
asserting the reimbursements are not good enough.
In a motion to dismiss the Mercedes subframe class action, the
automaker argues against all the allegations brought against
Mercedes in the lawsuit.
But the primary argument has its focus on the subframe extended
warranty.
"The Mercedes subframe extended warranty applies to the replacement
of the rear subframe for up to 20 years and unlimited miles. It
also provides for reimbursement to owners who previously paid to
repair any subframe corrosion." -- Mercedes-Benz
Mercedes told the judge all the subframe claims against the
automaker in the class action are allegedly covered by repairs
Mercedes has already voluntarily offered for free.
Mercedes also contends none of the owners who sued allege their
vehicles suffered from subframe rust problems during the 4-year /
50,000-mile warranties, and one plaintiff who filed the class
action doesn't allege their vehicle had any problems at all.
In its motion, Mercedes told the judge the class action isn't
"ripe" to be heard because Mercedes, "has offered all of these
plaintiffs and more than one million other affected vehicle owners
a comprehensive extended warranty against corrosion affecting the
rear subframes of their vehicles."
The automaker also told the judge how none of the plaintiffs have
requested repairs or reimbursements under the subframe extended
warranty, but instead those vehicle owners chose to file a class
action lawsuit for more than $5 million.
In addition, Mercedes argues each named plaintiff drove their
vehicle for many years and tens of thousands of miles without any
problems.
"Most significantly, because plaintiffs drove their vehicles for
many years and tens of thousands of miles, they cannot allege facts
showing their vehicles are 'unmerchantable.'" — Mercedes-Benz
Calling the subframe class action "an improper shotgun pleading,"
Mercedes-Benz contends the plaintiffs have no facts to support any
"nationwide claim." And none of the plaintiffs allegedly requested
repairs within the time and mileage limitations of the original
warranties.
According to Mercedes, the subframe extended warranty was created
even though testing indicates there are no safety concerns.
In its motion to dismiss the subframe class action lawsuit,
Mercedes references how the plaintiffs claim the extended warranty
might not prove to be good enough and may not cover all potential
costs.
This, according to Mercedes, is nothing more than speculation and
speculative claims should be dismissed.
The Mercedes-Benz subframe class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: Sowa, et
al., v. Mercedes-Benz Group AG, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, and Corpus Law Patel, LLC, DiCello Levitt, Feldman
Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig LLP, Freed Kanner
London & Millen, Tadler Law LLP, Councill, Gunnemann & Chally, LLC,
Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Frederick Law Group, PLLC, and
Shub & Johns LLC. [GN]
METALTEK INTERNATIONAL: FLSA Settlement in Herman Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keith Herman, individually
and on behalf others similarly situated, v. MetalTek International,
Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-01476-JJH (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey J. Helmick entered an order pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
(a) preliminarily approving the FLSA settlement and class action
Settlement in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and
Release
found;
(b) conditionally certifying a settlement class regarding
claims
under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for purposes
of
proceeding in connection with the final approval of the
settlement agreement;
(c) appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel;
(d) appointing Keith Herman as the Class Representative;
(e) appointing Analytics Consulting, LLC as the Claims
Administrator;
(f) preliminarily approving the service payment to the
Plaintiff;
(g) preliminarily approving Class Counsel's request for
attorneys'
fee and litigation expenses;
(h) approving the form, content, and manner of notice to the
proposed settlement class; and
(i) scheduling a final approval hearing.
On August 17, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this action alleging the
Defendant violated the FLSA and similar Ohio statutes by failing to
pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all their
unpaid wages and overtime pay.
MetalTek International is a metal casting manufacturing
specializing in high temperature, severe wear, and harsh corrosive
environments.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46nuYbT at no extra charge.[CC]
MICHIGAN RESTAURANT: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Schnotala Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SCHNOTALA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHIGAN RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,
PATRICK GAUNCE, WAYNE GAUNCE, MARK HARGER, DOE CORPORATION 1-10,
JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00687 (W.D. Mich., June
28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid
minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff worked at Michigan Restaurant Pizza stores as a
delivery driver from approximately 2018 until June 2021.
Michigan Restaurant Group, Inc. is an owner and operator of Papa
John's pizza restaurants in Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C.
940 Monroe Ave NW, Suite 253
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 458-6814
E-mail: brad@cunninghamdalman.com
- and -
Frank Raimond, Esq.
RAIMOND & STAINES, LLC
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 884-9636
E-mail: frank@raimondstaines.com
- and -
Allen Wong, Esq.
ALLEN WONG PLLC
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (646) 801-8778
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Microvast Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MVST, MVSTW)
resulting from allegations that Microvast may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Microvast securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16538 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 22, 2023, Reuters reported that the U.S.
Department of Energy (DoE) canceled a $200M grant to lithium
battery manufacturer, Microvast, citing lawmakers' concerns over
Microvast's alleged links to the Chinese Communist Party. Microvast
has been in talks with the DoE over the grant to help build a plant
in Tennessee to support its work with General Motors developing
specialized electric vehicle batteries.
On this news, Microvast's stock price fell $0.80 per share, or
36.36% to close at $1.40 per share on May 23, 2023.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MID‐CITY FOUNDRY: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 21, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUVELLE SANDERS, On behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MID‐CITY FOUNDRY
CO., Case No. 2:23-cv-00318-WED (Court), the Hon. Judge William E.
Duffin entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. The parties may join other parties and June 28, 2023
amend the pleadings without leave of
court no later than:
2. The parties shall make their initial June 30, 2023
disclosures to the opposing party in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)
no later than:
3. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional Nov. 20, 2023
certification and class certification is
due no later than:
4. The Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class June 21, 2024
certification is due no later than:
Mid-City Foundry produces complex, core oriented gray and ductile
iron castings serving a wide range of industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46zp5rV at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Forest Class Suit Proceedings Adjourned to July 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Forest et al v. City of
New York et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-00743-JHR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered an order that the proceeding
currently scheduled for June 28, 2023, is adjourned to July 18,
2023.
Moreover, if the parties have not submitted a Proposed Preliminary
Injunction Order by July 14, 2023, at 12:00 p.m., then by 5:00 p.m.
that day, they shall submit a joint letter regarding the status of
their efforts to reach agreement on a Proposed Order.
The Parties have discussed the Proposed Order and believe we will
reach final agreement on it on or before July 14, 2023.
On January 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint
alleging that the Defendants are systemically out of compliance
with their obligations under federal and state law to timely
deliver Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Cash
Assistance benefits to thousands of low-income New Yorkers who are
entitled to them.
The Complaint alleges systemic problems with the Defendants'
processes and procedures, including those related to submission of
applications/recertifications and completing interviews.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XDTkdo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kathleen M. Kelleher
The Legal Aid Society
199 Water Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 577-3307
E-mail: kkelleher@legal-aid.org
- and -
Benjamin E. Rosenberg, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
Three Bryant Park
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 698-3500
E-mail: benjamin.rosenberg@dechert.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan Pines, Esq.
DEP. CHIEF, GENERAL, LITIGATION DIVISION,
NYC LAW DEPARTMENT,
100 Church Street, Rm. 2-178
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2082
E-mail: jpines@law.nyc.gov
- and -
Julia Russel, Esq.
NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
100 Pearl St., 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 613-5000
E-mail: jrussell@nylag.org
NEW YORK: C.K. Bid to Compel Electronic Discovery Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.K. through his next
friend P.K.; C.W. through her next friend P.W.; C.X., through her
next friend P.X.; C.Y. through his next friend P.Y., for themselves
and those similarly situated, v. Mary T. Bassett, in her official
capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health; and Ann Marie T. Sullivan, in her official capacity as the
Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01791-BMC-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James M. Wicks
entered an order denying in part and granting in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel electronic discovery and the
Defendants' cross-motion for a protective order.
-- The Defendants are directed to utilize and apply the
Plaintiffs'
most recent keyword search term proposal to the documents of
the
24 custodians to create the document review population.
-- The parties are directed to continue with depositions and the
Defendants shall prioritize reviewing the documents of
custodians
noticed for deposition.
The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief, and asserting various causes of
action against the Defendants related to New York State's alleged
failure to provide mental health services to Medicaid-eligible
children.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have violated the Early
and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment Services
provisions of the Medicaid Act.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44mgmri at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Claire Renee Glasspiegel, Esq.
Valerie Achille, Esq.
Daniele Gerard, Esq.
Harry Frischer, Esq.
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS
197 Van Vorst St., Ste 305
Jersey City, NJ 07302
- and -
Brandy Tomlinson, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK
44 Exchange Boulevard, Ste 110
Rochester, NY 14614
- and -
Kimberly Lewis, Esq.
Martha Jane Perkins, Esq.
NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
3701 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 750
Los Angeles, CA 90010
- and -
Shiva Pedram, Esq.
Jacob Wonn, Esq.
Steven H. Holinstat, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin D Liebowitz, Esq.
Matthew Joseph Lawson, Esq.
Yuval Rubinstein, Esq.
Rebecca Durie Katherine Culley, Esq.
OFFICE OF NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
NEXTFOODS INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVLYN ANDRADE-HEYMSFIELD,
on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, v. NEXTFOODS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01446-BTM-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Berg entered an order
granting joint motion to continue date of the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.
On June 26, 2023, NextFoods will produce ESI documents located on
its internal servers that were identified using the electronic
search terms for the Plaintiff's first and second set of document
requests.
To the extent any additional documents are subsequently identified
pursuant to this search, production of such documents must be
completed no later than July 14, 2023.
On or before June 30, 2023, NextFoods will produce ESI documents
located through searches of custodian emails that were identified
using the electronic search terms for the Plaintiff's first and
second set of document requests.
On or before July 21, 2023, the Plaintiff will take the deposition
of Juan Gluth, Barbara Keiger, and Mike Chiaverini.
The deadline for the Plaintiff to move for class certification is
continued to August 4, 2023.
NextFoods produces and distributes dairy-free, soy-free, and vegan
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D1oJNr at no extra charge.[CC]
NYU LANGONE: General Pre-Trial Management Order Entered in Melendez
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE MELENDEZ, v.
NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07632-JGK-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered a general
pre-trial management order:
-- All pre-trial applications, including those relating to
scheduling and discovery, shall be made to the undersigned
(except motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings,
for
injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class
certification).
-- All applications must comply with this Court's Individual
Practices, which are available through the Clerk’s Office or
at:
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein
-- The parties should write to the Court at any time that they
wish
to participate in Court sponsored mediation.
-- All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all
discovery.
-- Discovery motions -- that is, any application pursuant to
Rules
26 through 37 or 45 -- not only must comply with section 2.A.
of
the Court's Individual Practices but also must be made
promptly
after the cause for such a motion arises.
NYU Langone is an academic medical center devoted to patient care,
education, and research.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44aR6ob at no extra charge.[CC]
OPENAI INC: Tremblay Sues Over Illegal Use of Copyrighted Books
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL TREMBLAY and MONA AWAD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OPENAI, INC.; OPENAI,
L.P.; OPENAI OPCO, L.L.C; OPENAI GP, L.L.C.; OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP
I, L.L.C.; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P.; and OPENAI STARTUP FUND
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03223 (N.D. Cal.,
June 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for direct
copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement,
violations of section 1202(b) of the Digital Millenium Copyright
Act, unjust enrichment, violations of the California and common law
unfair competition laws, and negligence.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the
unlawful use of copyrighted books as training material for ChatGPT,
is a software product created, maintained, and sold by OpenAI. The
Plaintiffs never authorized OpenAI to make copies of their books,
make derivative works, publicly display copies (or derivative
works), or distribute copies (or derivative works). The Defendants,
by and through the use of ChatGPT, benefit commercial and profit
richly from the use of Plaintiffs' and Class members' copyrighted
materials. The Plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief and
damages as a result and consequence of the Defendants' alleged
unlawful conduct.
OpenAI, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of
business located at 3180 18th St., San Francisco, California.
OpenAI, L.P. is a wholly owned subsidiary of OpenAI Inc., with its
principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San
Francisco, California.
OpenAI OpCo, L.L.C. is a wholly owned subsidiary of OpenAI Inc.,
with its principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San
Francisco, California.
OpenAI GP, L.L.C. is a wholly owned subsidiary of OpenAI Inc., with
its principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San
Francisco, California.
OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P. is a limited partnership, with its
principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San
Francisco, California.
OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, L.L.C. is the general partner of OpenAI
Startup Fund I, with its principal place of business located at
3180 18th St., San Francisco, California.
OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC is a fund management firm, with
its principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San
Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
Kathleen J. McMahon, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
kmcmahon@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew Butterick, Esq.
1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Telephone: (323) 968-2632
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com
OPENAI INC: Two Authors File ChatGPT Copyright Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that two
authors have filed a ChatGPT lawsuit alleging they did not consent
to the use of their copyrighted books as training material for
OpenAI's software product.
"Nonetheless, their copyrighted materials were ingested and used to
train ChatGPT," plaintiffs Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad allege in
the ChatGPT class action lawsuit.
OpenAI creates artificial intelligence (AI) products that are
designed to algorithmically simulate human reasoning, the ChatGPT
lawsuit explains.
ChatGPT is a software product that is powered by two artificial
intelligence software programs called GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, which are
known as large language models.
Instead of being programmed in a traditional manner, large language
models are "trained" by copying large amounts of text and
extracting information from it, the ChatGPT lawsuit explains. The
large language model is able to use the information from this
training dataset to output convincing responses to user prompts.
Tremblay and Awad note that, when prompted, ChatGPT generates
accurate summaries of their copyrighted work, which is only
possible if ChatGPT was trained on their copyrighted materials.
They say that OpenAI defendants "profit richly" from the use of
their copyrighted materials and yet the authors never consented to
the use of their copyrighted materials without credit or
compensation.
ChatGPT lawsuit says OpenAI has previously utilized illegal 'shadow
libraries' for AI training datasets
Although many types of material are used to train large language
models, "books offer the best examples of high-quality longform
writing," according to the ChatGPT lawsuit.
OpenAI has previously utilized books for its AI training datasets,
including unpublished novels (the majority of which were under
copyright) available on a website that provides the materials for
free. The plaintiffs suggest that OpenAI may have utilized
copyrighted materials from "flagrantly illegal shadow libraries."
Tremblay and Awad note that OpenAI's March 2023 paper introducing
GPT-4 failed to include any information about the training dataset.
However, they say that ChatGPT was able to generate highly accurate
summaries of their books when prompted, suggesting that their
copyrighted material was used in the training dataset without their
consent.
They filed the ChatGPT class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and a proposed class of U.S. residents and entities that own a U.S.
copyright for any work used as training data for the OpenAI
language models during the class period.
Earlier this year, a tech policy group urged federal regulators to
block OpenAI's GPT-4 AI product because it does not meet federal
standards.
Tremblay and Awad are represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio
Zirpoli, Christopher K.L. Young, and Kathleen J. McMahon of Joseph
Saveri Law Firm LLP, and Matthew Butterick.
The ChatGPT lawsuit is Paul Tremblay, et al. v. OpenAI Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:23-cv-03223-KAW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.[GN]
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Carpenter
------------------------------------------------------------------
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from court
orders in the lawsuit entitled Crystal Carpenter, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Opportunity Financial, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-09875-FLA-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring this class action complaint against the Defendants for unfair
competition, money had and received, declaratory relief, Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Association-in-Fact
Enterprise, RICO conspiracy, and fraudulent concealment.
On Feb. 17, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha on Mar. 29, 2023.
On Apr. 12, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration.
On June 20, 2023, the Court denied the Defendants' motion for
reconsideration.
The appellate case is captioned Crystal Carpenter, et al v.
Opportunity Financial, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-55553, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June
26, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Opportunity Financial, LLC Mediation Questionnaire
was due on July 3, 2023;
-- Appellant Opportunity Financial, LLC opening brief is due on
August 28, 2023;
-- Appellees Crystal Carpenter and Jordan Cason answering brief
is due on September 28, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees CRYSTAL CARPENTER, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Erick Kees Kuylman, Esq.
Dan Terzian, Esq.
WARREN TERZIAN, LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90245
Telephone: (208) 869-2492
- and -
Thomas D. Warren, Esq.
WARREN TERZIAN LLP
30799 Pinetree Road, Suite 345
Pepper Pike, OH 44124
Telephone: (216) 304-4970
Defendants-Appellants OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL, LLC, et al. are
represented by:
Ali Abugheida, Esq.
James R. McGuire, Esq.
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 619-3418
(415) 619-3415
- and -
Fredrick S. Levin, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 424-3900
ORLANDO HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 19, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE CYR, v. ORLANDO
HEALTH, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00588-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge William F. Jung entered an order a case management and
scheduling order as follows:
-- M.D. Fla. 3.03 Disclosure Immediately
-- Mandatory Rule 26(a)(1) Initial July 6, 2023
Disclosures:
-- Third Party Joinder/Amend Pleading: November 3,
2023
-- The Plaintiff Class Certification Expert January 23,
2024
Disclosure:
-- The Defendant Class Certification Expert March 5, 2024
Disclosure:
-- Class Certification Motion filing: April 19, 2024
-- Response to Class Certification Motion: May 20, 2024
-- Reply to Class Certification Motion: June 10, 2024
-- Mediator Selection/Scheduling due by: July 15, 2024
-- Conduct Mediation by: August 14,
2024
-- Discovery Cut-Off: December 30,
2024
-- The Plaintiff Expert Disclosure: January 31,
2025
-- The Defendant Expert Disclosure: February 28,
2025
-- Rebubuttal Expert: March 14, 2025
-- Dispositive Motion filing: April 8, 2025
-- Pretrial Statement due: August 7, 2025
Orlando Health is a private, not-for-profit network of community
and specialty hospitals based in Orlando, Florida.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pvAAjJ at no extra charge.[CC]
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Carter Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee, Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNIE CARTER V. PATRICK
L. O'DANIEL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00137-H (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff files a motion to stay filing fee and amended complaint.
On June 13, 2023, the Court severed Case No. 1:23-CV-00086-H and
ordered each Plaintiff to submit a complete amended complaint and
pay the filing fee of $402/file IFP.
A copy of the Plaintiff's dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43abMeI at no extra charge.[CC]
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Garcia Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee, Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORRY GARCIA V. PATRICK L.
O'DANIEL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00140-H (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff files a motion to stay filing fee and amended complaint.
On June 13, 2023, the Court severed Case No. 1:23-CV-00086-H and
ordered each Plaintiff to submit a complete amended complaint and
pay the filing fee of $402/file IFP.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43fqKjE at no extra
charge.[CC]
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Quinones Seeks to Stay Filing Fee
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC QUINONES V. PATRICK
O'DANIEL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00138-H (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff files a motion to stay filing fee and amended complaint.
On June 13, 2023, the Court severed Case No. 1:23-CV-00086-H and
ordered each Plaintiff to submit a complete amended complaint and
pay the filing fee of $402/file IFP.
A copy of the Plaintiff's order dated June 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PMT6Pn at no extra
charge.[CC]
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Zirus Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee & Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT ZIRUS V. PATRICK L.
O'DANIEL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00135-H (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff files a motion to stay filing fee and amended complaint.
On June 13, 2023, the Court severed Case No. 1:23-CV-00086-H and
ordered each Plaintiff to submit a complete amended complaint and
pay the filing fee of $402/file IFP.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JF6K2Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHILLP PHIEFFERM: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Hoye
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hoye, et al., v. MacLellan
Integrated Services, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01150-MMM-JEH (C.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order
as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44b831P at no extra charge.[CC]
PHOENIX LAW: Court OK's Bid for Open Discovery in Scofield Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scofield v. Phoenix Law
PC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01004 (D. Colo., Filed April 21, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting motion
for Discovery to open discovery.
The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
PLAZA CLUB: Bid to Amend Class Cert Scheduling Order Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYANN RIGSBY, Individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. PLAZA CLUB CITY
APARTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00061-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Brian C. Wimes entered an order granting in part parties'
joint motion to amend the class certification scheduling order as
to the summary judgment briefing schedule and the suspended
deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The parties are denied without prejudice preemptive leave to file
any of their summary judgment briefing in excess of the page limit
set by L.R. 7.0. If the parties so wish, they may file a separate
motion for leave to file in excess of the page limit set by L.R.
7.0 and the Court will consider it at that time.
On June 16, 2023, the parties filed the instant motion requesting
an amendment to the Class Certification Scheduling Order that
modifies the Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiff's original deadline to file a motion for class
certification was June 1, 2023; however, in light of the
Defendant's intent to file a motion for summary judgment, the
parties request to suspend the deadline for the motion for class
certification until after the Court has ruled on the Defendant’s
forthcoming motion for summary judgment.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xynn6l at no extra charge.[CC]
PORTERCARE ADVENTIST: $6.5MM Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Delmonico, writing for Ryortho, reports that the Denver
District Court has granted preliminary approval to a $6.5 million
settlement resolving allegations that a hospital failed to
adequately sterilize surgical instruments.
The class action was brought against PorterCare Adventist Health
System doing business as Centura Health-Porter Adventist Hospital,
Centura Health Corporation, and Porter Adventist Hospital
(collectively the "hospital").
According to the plaintiffs for the class action settlement, former
patients alleged that the hospital "failed to adequately sterilize
surgical instruments, failed to inform the public and medical
professionals of this sterilization problem, and unjustly profited
from the surgeries it provided during this period of time."
The settlement affects patients who had orthopedic or spinal
surgery at Porter Adventist Hospital in Denver, Colorado, between
July 21, 2016, and April 5, 2018. Patients who received surgical
treatment during that time received a letter informing them of a
potential increased risk of infection.
If they subsequently underwent blood testing for bloodborne
pathogens after learning about the sterilization issue and had
negative results, they may be eligible to be part of the class
action. Testing included tests for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and
HIV. Patients who experienced a physical injury including surgical
site infection are not included in the class.
According to the settlement agreement, the hospital will pay $6.5
million to settle the class action for 3,000 class members. The
funds will be distributed equally, on a pro-rata basis, to each
class member. Each class member will receive an estimated $1,250.
The hospital denies all allegations of wrongdoing. The final
approval hearing for the settlement is currently scheduled for
September 2023.
Porter Adventist Hospital, according to its website, is a
full-service, acute-care referral center. It specializes in the
following: joint replacement, spine surgery, organ transplant,
behavioral health, cancer care, and innovative cardiac treatments.
It lists joint replacement as one of its distinctive services. [GN]
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Court Narrows Claims in Thurston Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW THURSTON, v.
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED FINANCIAL
CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00375-NT (Court), the Hon. Judge
Nancy Torresen entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to
dismiss Count III of the Plaintiff's Complaint:
-- The motion is denied as to all other claims.
-- Overall, the Plaintiff has plausibly stated a claim of unfair
and deceptive acts under the UTPA, and the Defendants' motion to
dismiss Count II of the Plaintiff's Complaint is denied.
On January 21, 2022, the Plaintiff Matthew Thurston's vehicle -- a
2012 Volvo XC70—was badly damaged in a collision.
The Plaintiff's insurance policy was underwritten by United
Financial Casualty Company.
In sum, the Plaintiff's suit is not precluded because the appraisal
clause does not apply to the dispute over the Defendants'
application of a PSA to the Plaintiff's claim or those of the
purported class in general.
Progressive Casualty is an insurance company. The Company provides
personal, automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and
health insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rcHtqI at no extra charge.[CC]
PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Sept. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN SPENCER; JASON
VIGLIANCO; and MANDY RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH, et al.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01033-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Richard A.
Jones entered an order setting case schedule as follows:
Event Date
Deadline for joining of additional parties: Aug. 28, 2023
Class certification motion: Sept. 28, 2023
The Defendants' opposition: Oct. 19, 2023
The Plaintiffs' reply: Nov. 2, 2023
Providence St. Joseph operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization provides healthcare services, as well as operates
hospitals.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44swW8R at no extra charge.[CC]
RIPPLE LABS: Must Face Securities Class Action Over Crypto Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randi Love, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a Ripple Labs
Inc. investor class was granted certification in a cryptocurrency
securities lawsuit against the company over virtual token losses.
The company, CEO Bradley Garlinghouse, and its subsidiary XRP II
challenged the certification. But the class met the four
requirements for certification, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the US
District Court for the Northern District of California said June
30.
The action alleges a "scheme by defendants to raise hundred of
millions of dollars through sales of XRP -- an unregistered
security -- to retail investors in violation of the registration
provisions of federal and state securities laws," court records
show.
The plaintiffs established that common class issues will
predominate over individual ones, the judge said.
Ripple argued that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they'd
adequately protect the interests of the class, because many
proposed members didn't agree on the premise of the lawsuit and one
named plaintiff, Bradley Sostack, made secondary market purchases,
rendering his claims subject to unique defenses.
But, the merits issue of whether XRP is a security will be the same
for all class members and "any disagreements by potential class
members over the premise of the lawsuit can be remedied by the
standard opt-out procedure," Hamilton said.
Ripple also failed to present any reason why Sostack's indirect
purchases made his claim any weaker than those of other class
members, the court said.
Hamilton also said she didn't find merit in Ripple's argument that
Sostack's status as a day trader made him lack credibility and in
turn made his claims atypical of the class's.
Ripple also argued that individualized issues of standing
predominate over common questions, and that the class didn't put
forward a common methodology for proving damages.
No specific bilateral transactions raising individualized issues
were identified, nor were any transactions on decentralized
exchanges, the court said.
To the extent "defendants identify entities that acquired XRP in
exchange for goods or services, such as Tapjets, Time Magazine, and
Crypto.com Pay," Hamilton said, Ripple provides "no indication of
how common or uncommon such transactions were, compared to the rest
of the transactions within the scope of the class."
The court certified two classes, for federal and California state
securities claims, with the limitation that both only include
members who purchased XRP within the US during the relevant class
period from July 3, 2017 to June 30, 2023.
Taylor-Copeland Law and Susman Godfrey LLP represented the
plaintiffs. King & Spalding LLP; Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; and
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC represented the
defendants.
The case is Zakinov v. Ripple Labs Inc., N.D. Cal., No.
18-cv-06753, 6/30/23. [GN]
ROOFLINE INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 3, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS JIMENEZ and JUAN
PINZON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, v. ROOFLINE, INC. dba ROOFLINE SUPPLY &
DELIVERY, an Oregon corporation; SRS DISTRIBUTION INC., a Delaware
corporation; J. B. WHOLESALE ROOFING AND BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., a
California corporation; BUILDERS SUPPLY LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-00398-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William B. Shubb
entered a pretrial scheduling order as follows:
All defendants have been served, and no further service is
permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).
-- The parties agree to serve the initial Aug. 2, 2023
disclosures required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on or
before:
-- Any motion for class certification July 3, 2024
shall be filed on or before:
-- Final Pretrial Conference is set for: June 2, 2025
Roofline provides building products. The Company offers vinyl
siding, residential roofing, fiber cement, gutter materials, patio
covers, and screen rooms.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44bog7l at no extra charge.[CC]
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Ill. Appeals Court Reverses BIPA Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anjali C. Das, writing for Reuters, reports that in 2022, in the
first jury trial in a Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
class action lawsuit, a $228 million judgment was entered against
the defendant. Richard Rogers v. BSNF Railway Company, Case No.
19-cv-03083, Dkt. No. 3868 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2022). In that case,
the plaintiff alleged the defendant required truck drivers to scan
their fingerprints when entering the defendant's railyards to pick
up and drop off cargo.
The jury found that the defendant violated BIPA 45,600 times -- one
time per each class member -- by failing to provide and obtain the
required informed consent. This article, the second of a three-part
series, offers insights and exposition of the state of BIPA class
actions in this regard. Part one of this series provided an
overview of BIPA and other states' biometric privacy laws.
BIPA provides for statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent
violation and up to $5,000 for reckless or intentional violations.
When you do the math, 45,600 (per violation/class member)
multiplied by $5,000 totals $228 million. However, as discussed
below, a recent decision by the Illinois Supreme Court could serve
as a basis to further increase the award based on its statutory
interpretation of damages allowed under BIPA.
How many times can a company violate BIPA?
In an unprecedented decision issued earlier this year, the Illinois
Supreme Court held that a company can be subject to violations of
BIPA each time it scans or transmits biometric data without an
individual's prior informed consent -- potentially leading to
financially crippling statutory damages for companies. Cothron v.
White Castle Systems, 2023 IL 128004 (Ill. Feb. 17, 2023).
The plaintiff in White Castle alleged that a new claim accrued in
violation of the Act each time she scanned her fingerprints, which
the employer then sent to a third-party authenticator. The Illinois
Supreme Court concluded that aparty violates BIPA each and every
time it collects, captures, and/or transmits a person's biometric
information without prior informed consent.
While the "potential for significant damage awards under the Act"
is a deterrent to companies, the court recognized the absence of
legislative intent to award damages "that would result in the
financial destruction of a business." Nonetheless, the court
concluded that such public-policy concerns were best left to the
legislature and encouraged the state Legislature to "review these
policy concerns and make clear its intent regarding the assessment
of damages under the Act." However, unless and until BIPA is
modified to limit recoverable damages, companies will continue to
face the threat of exponential damages.
Proposed amendments to BIPA
Proposed amendments to BIPA are currently pending that would
require a potential claimant to make a pre-suit demand on the
company with an opportunity to cure the violation within 15 days.
If the company provides an express written statement confirming
that the violation has been cured within 15 days, then the company
cannot be sued for individual statutory damages or class-wide
statutory damages.
Notably, however, the proposed amendments do not eliminate a
private right of action or limit class-wide damages. Under the
circumstances, the amendments will not likely provide much solace
to companies seeking to avoid potentially significant exposure.
Five-year statute of limitations for BIPA claims
In yet another landmark BIPA decision in 2023, the Illinois Supreme
Court addressed the applicable statute of limitations that applies
to BIPA claims. Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, 2023 IL 127801 (Feb.
2, 2023). In that case, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit
against his employer for violating the statute in connection with
the collection of employee fingerprints.
Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated
BIPA because it (1) failed to institute and maintain a publicly
available retention and destruction policy for biometric
information as required by section 15(a) of the Act; (2) failed to
provide notice and to obtain consent when collecting plaintiff's
biometric data as required by section 15(b); and (3) disclosed
plaintiff's biometric information to third parties without his
consent in violation of section 15(d).
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a one-year or
five-year statute of limitations period applied to BIPA claims.
The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with plaintiffs that the
five-year statute of limitations period applied to BIPA claims.
First, Illinois courts routinely apply the five-year catchall
limitations period when a statute lacks a specific limitations
period. Second, the court opined that a shorter limitations period
would "thwart legislative intent" and "prejudice those whom the Act
is intended to protect." Moreover, "it is unclear when or if an
individual would discover evidence of the disclosure of his or her
biometrics in violation of the Act." In short, there is clearly a
long tail on potential BIPA claims in light of the applicable
five-year statute of limitations period.
Companies cannot shift BIPA liability to third-party vendors
In the Rogers case discussed above, the defendant attempted to
shift the blame to a third-party technology vendor hired by the
defendant pursuant to a contract to collect and process drivers'
fingerprints. The defendant argued that the vendor failed to follow
the consent requirements under section 15(b) of BIPA, and that the
defendant could not be held liable under the statute for the acts
of any third party.
However, the court disagreed, finding that the defendant could be
held vicariously liable for the acts of third parties under BIPA.
In short, companies cannot escape liability or damages under BIPA
by relying on third-party vendors to collect, process or store
biometric information.
Does the Labor Management Relations Act preempt BIPA
claims?
On March 23, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court continued its recent
string of BIPA rulings by addressing whether section 301 of the
Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185 preempts
BIPA claims asserted by employees covered by a collective
bargaining agreement. See Walton v. Roosevelt University, 2023 IL
128338 (Ill. 2023).
Section 301 of the LMRA states that suits for violations of
contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing
employees shall be brought in federal district court.
In the Walton case, the plaintiff, a former union employee, filed a
class action against the University alleging that it collected,
used, stored and disclosed employees' biometric data in violation
of BIPA. As a condition of employment, the University allegedly
required employees to enroll scans of their hand geometry onto a
biometric time-keeping device as a means of clocking in and out of
work.
In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the University failed
to (1) provide him with (or obtain) a release consenting to the
collection and use of his biometric data, (2) provide information
concerning the University's retention policy for biometric data or
(3) provide information regarding the specific purpose or length of
time for which the University stored biometric data.
The University sought dismissal of the complaint on the grounds
that the BIPA claims were preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. In
particular, the University observed that the plaintiff was a member
of a collective bargaining unit while he was employed, and thereby
agreed to the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
between the University and the employees' union. The University
further argued that the broad management-rights clause in the CBA
governed the manner in which union employees clocked in and out of
work.
The Illinois trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
The Illinois Court of Appeals reversed, finding that BIPA claims
were covered under the CBA and preempted by federal law, citing the
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Fernandez v. Kerry,
Inc., 14 F.4th 644 (7th Cir. 2021).
In Fernandez, the 7th Circuit opined that BIPA claims by union
employees were preempted by LMRA. See also Miller v. Southwest
Airlines Co., 926 F.3d 898 (7th Cir. 2019) (finding that a BIPA
claim was similarly preempted under the Railway Labor Act, 45
U.S.C. Sec. 152). As such, the Illinois appellate court held that
the plaintiff and other unionized employees could pursue their
claims under the grievance procedures outlined in the CBA, as
opposed to pursuing litigation in state court.
The Illinois Supreme Court allowed plaintiff's petition for leave
to appeal and certified the following question:
Does section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
§ 185) preempt [BIPA Privacy Act] claims (740 ILCS 14/1 [West
2018] asserted by bargaining unit employees covered by a collective
bargaining agreement?
In reliance on the 7th Circuit's rulings in Fernandez and Miller,
the Illinois Supreme Court held, "it is both logical and reasonable
to conclude any dispute must be resolved according to federal law
and the agreement between the parties." As such, the Supreme Court
concluded that since the parties' CBA contained a broad
management-rights clause, the claims were preempted by LMRA.
In light of the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling in Walton, it will
be an uphill battle for union employees to file BIPA claims against
their employers in the face of a collective bargaining agreement
containing a broad management rights clause governing the terms and
conditions of employment. Of course, this decision has limited
application and will not stop the steady flow of BIPA claims by
non-unionized workers in the absence of a CBA. [GN]
RUSSIA: Jailed Politician's Family Sues Over Denied Prison Visits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Novaya Gazeta Europe reports that Alexey Navalny's family has filed
a class action suit against his prison as they are not allowed to
visit him, the politician revealed on his social media.
Navalny says his relatives are "determined to go all the way to the
Constitutional Court".
"I am a convict, and they keep reminding me that I am 'just like
everyone else'. And yet, I have had 0 (zero) visits over the past
year. 0 (zero) long visits, 0 (zero) short visits, and 2 (two)
phone calls 11 months ago," the politician revealed.
In his maximum security prison, his family is supposed to be
legally allowed to attend three long visits and three short visits
annually, as well as at least six phone calls.
"Let's take a maniac as an example. A serial killer. He ends up in
a maximum-security colony for those serving a life sentence. He
will spend the first 10 years there under ‘strict conditions'.
But even there this maniac will get one long visit and two short
visits a year. And I get none. Besides, there is an iron law: those
arriving at the colony after receiving their sentence are always
allowed one visit. However, I was exempt even from this iron law.
With the help of all kinds of tricks, pettifoggery and
‘disciplinary penalties', the prison officials invented a special
regime for me, which simply prohibits everything," Navalny wrote.
He stressed that
the Constitution guarantees that his children are entitled to see
him every now and then as he is obliged to participate in their
upbringing.
"The Constitution also guarantees the rights of my elderly parents:
I have an obligation to take care of them as best I can, which
implies that I have a right to communicate with them. And yet, they
were not even allowed into the courtroom on the first 'open' day of
my trial. Meanwhile, this hypocritical system proclaims that
communicating with relatives and maintaining social ties is one of
the signs of a convict's correction. In theory, this should be
encouraged in every way possible," the politician noted, stressing
that this issue is a matter of principle for him.
A new trial against Navalny started in his prison in June. He is
accused of "extremism" and is facing 30 more years in prison on six
charges, including "setting up an extremist community" and
"justifying nazism". Daniel Kholodny, the technical director of the
Navalny LIVE YouTube channel, will be tried alongside his former
boss. Kholony has been in a pretrial jail for over a year.
The judge proclaimed that the trial would be held behind closed
doors due to "information from one of the prison personnel that
provocations involving physical violence might be used". [GN]
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over QLED 4K Televisions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
Samsung Electronics Co. and Best Buy in the United States over
Samsung's QLED 4K televisions, industry sources said on July 4.
The lawsuit was filed on July 3 (U.S. time) by Ray Kim Law in
California Central District Court.
The suit alleges some Samsung QLED 4K televisions are not fitted
with Motion Xcelerator Turbo+, FreeSync or HDMI 2.1, as advertised.
The features are said to allow smooth gaming experiences.
It was the first time the South Korean tech giant was hit with a
consumer class action over TV products since 2018, when a lawsuit
claimed certain Samsung LED TVs overheated and became unusable.
[GN]
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Subclass in Dunsmore Provisionally Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE
ANDRADE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA
LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, CHRISTOPHER
NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and
LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order provisionally
certifying a Subclass of:
"all qualified individuals with a hearing and/or mobility
disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. section 12102,
29
U.S.C. section 705(9)(B), and California Government Code section
12926(j) and (i), and who are now, or will be in the future,
incarcerated in all San Diego County Jail facilities."
The Court appoints the Plaintiffs as the provisional class
representatives for the Subclass.
The Court appoints the Plaintiffs’ counsel—Gay Grunfeld and Van
Swearingen of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Aaron Fischer of
Law Office of Aaron J. Fischer, and Christopher Young of DLA Piper
LLP—as provisional class counsel.
On April 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed Motions for Preliminary
Injunction and Provisional Class Certification seeking to ensure
that the Defendants County of San Diego and the San Diego County
Sheriff's Department.
(1) provide incarcerated people with hearing disabilities
effective communication through sign language
interpretation;
and
(2) house incarcerated people with mobility disabilities in
accessible locations, where they can safely access
sleeping,
toileting, and showering facilities, in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act,
and
California Government Code Section 11135 (ADA).
On May 17, 2023, the County of San Diego opposed the motions, on
the grounds that many of the factual allegations were incorrect and
because the County was already in the process of renovating its
policies and facilities.
On May 22, 2023, the parties and their experts met and conferred
via Zoom for two hours. On May 24, 2023, the parties and their
experts conducted an Early Neutral Evaluation before the Honorable
David
Leshner at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California in San Diego.
On June 5, 8, 15, and 16, 2023, the parties conducted further
settlement discussions via Zoom with Judge Leshner.
San Diego County Sheriff's Department is the chief law enforcement
agency in San Diego County.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46zWQtb at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gay C. Grunfeld, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission St 6th floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth M. Pappy, Esq.
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
444 S Flower St Ste 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
SONY ELECTRONICS: Class Certification Order Entered in Musharbash
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MUSHARBASH v. SONY
ELECTRONICS, INC., Case No. (Court), the Hon. Judge Fernando M.
Olguin entered an order re: motions for class certification as
follows:
-- Any motion(s) for class certification shall comply with all
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, as well as
this
Order.
-- The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully
integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in
which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately
followed by the opposing party's/parties' response.
-- The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed
appendix of declarations and written evidence (including
documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.).
Sony Electronics provides audio-visual products. The Company offers
a wide range of products such as televisions, digital cameras,
camcorders.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rcOw2r at no extra charge.[CC]
STONE AGE: Woods Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Servers
--------------------------------------------------------------
CALEB WOODS, ISABELLA MESEROLE, AYANA VARNES, YURELI VAZQUEZ, ALEXA
HUERTA, ALEXIS HUNTER, HANNAH SOLARES, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STONE AGE KOREAN BBQ
LLC, SHAOZHOU JIANG, a/k/a SAM JAI-ANG, Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-00838-MHH (N.D. Ala., June 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
conversion.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers at Stone
Age Korean BBQ's Huntsville location in Alabama at any time between
2020 and 2023.
Stone Age Korean BBQ, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator
located in Huntsville, Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Patrick Evans, Esq.
G. Daniel Evans, Esq.
Alexandria Parrish, Esq.
THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C.
1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 870-1970
Facsimile: (205) 870-7763
E-mail: dpevans@evanslawpc.com
gdevans@evanslawpc.com
ap@evanslawpc.com
STRANGE HONEY: Greer Appeals Denial of Bid to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GREER, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the
lawsuit entitled Robert Greer, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Strange Honey
Farm, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00262, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring a consumer class action against the Defendants for false and
deceptive marketing and sale of certain honey products.
On July 3, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case
for failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an
Order entered by Judge Katherine A. Crytzer on Sept. 12, 2022.
On Sept. 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend
complaint, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge
Katherine A. Crytzer on Mar. 28, 2023. Judge Crytzer ruled that the
Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint does not meet Rule 9(b)
requirements thus it cannot withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned Robert Greer, et al. v. Carol
Hagen, et al., Case No. 23-5589, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 26, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT GREER, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
James A. Holifield, Jr., Esq.
HOLIFIELD & JANICH
11907 Kingston Pike, Suite 201
Knoxville, TN 37934
Telephone: (865) 566-0115
Defendants-Appellees STRANGE HONEY FARM, LLC, et al. are
represented by:
Gordon Ball, Esq.
GORDON BALL
3728 W. End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37205
Telephone: (865) 525-7028
- and -
Mary Celeste Moffatt, Esq.
WIMBERLY, LAWSON, WRIGHT, DAVES & JONES
P.O. Box 2231
Knoxville, TN 37901
Telephone: (423) 587-6870
SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: $6.2MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on July 3 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers Sunlands Technology Group American
Depository Shares (NYSE: STG):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED AMERICAN
DEPOSITORY SHARES ("ADSs") OF SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY GROUP
("SUNLANDS") PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT
AND RELATED PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH SUNLANDS' MARCH
2018 INITIAL PUBLIC STOCK OFFERING (THE "SUNLANDS IPO OFFERING
DOCUMENTS").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a hearing
will be held on September 27, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Robert M. Levy, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Courtroom 11-B
South, Brooklyn, NY 11201, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$6,200,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of
up to one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $80,000, and a service
payment of no more than $10,000 to Plaintiff, should be approved;
and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated May 8, 2023 (the
"Settlement Stipulation"). The Court reserves the right to hold the
Settlement Fairness Hearing telephonically or by other virtual
means.
If you purchased ADSs of Sunlands pursuant or traceable to the
Sunlands IPO Offering Documents, your rights may be affected by
this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims
you may possess relating to your ownership interest in
publicly-traded Sunlands ADSs. If you need assistance obtaining a
detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form
("Claim Form"), you may write to, call, or contact the Claims
Administrator: Sunlands Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA
19063; (Toll-Free) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the
Notice and submit your Claim Form online at
www.strategicclaims.net/Sunlands/. If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form electronically or
postmarked no later than August 28, 2023 to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to share in the
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than September 6, 2023, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and awards to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
September 6, 2023, by each of the following:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phillip Kim
Brian B. Alexander
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Ave
40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Lead Counsel
Edmund Polubinski III
Nikolaus J. Williams
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Counsel for the Sunlands Defendants
Douglas H. Flaum
Gabrielle Lisa Gould
Goodwin Proctor LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Counsel for the Underwriter Defendants
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:
Brian B. Alexander
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave
40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
balexander@rosenlegal.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: JUNE 14, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Court Denies Haley's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA HALEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND
ANNUITY ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-855 (JPO)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denies the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by Haley against
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America ("TIAA")
alleging that TIAA engaged in prohibited transactions with the
Washington University Retirement Savings Plan and other retirement
plans in violation of section 406 of the Employee Retirement
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Court previously granted class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The
Second Circuit vacated and remanded, instructing the Court to
consider whether certain ERISA affirmative defenses raised by TIAA
would make class treatment unwarranted because individual issues
raised by the defenses predominate over those common to the class.
Haley is an employee of Washington University ("WashU") and a
participant in the Washington University Retirement Savings Plan,
an employee benefit plan regulated by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section
1106. WashU was the official Plan Administrator for Haley's Plan.
The Plan, like many other retirement plans, contracted with TIAA to
offer Plan participants the chance to take out a loan against their
savings.
TIAA structured the loans in a manner alleged to depart from
industry practice. Typically, loans like this are structured so
that a participant lends money to itself as beneficiary, avoiding
fees. For retirement loans administered by TIAA, participants were
required to borrow from TIAA's general account rather than from the
participant's own account. The amount transferred to a general
account would serve as the collateral securing the Plan
participant's loan. The TIAA loans required participants to
transfer 110% of the amount of the loan from the participant's plan
account to one of TIAA's general account products, which pay a
fixed rate of interest.
TIAA offered loans to many plans, which were governed by separate
contracts, administered by separate ERISA fiduciaries, and had
different terms for repayment. Additionally, TIAA's conduct spans
time and space: It made loans across ten years and throughout the
United States. And the terms of these loans were not identical.
TIAA profits from this because a participant is required to repay
the loan, with interest, to TIAA's general account, which also
earns the interest paid on the loan. Put differently, for the TIAA
loans, a participant does not receive the full amount of interest
they earned on their collateral at the time of repayment, because
some of it is retained by TIAA as compensation for administering
the loan.
On Feb. 3, 2017, Haley filed the putative class action against
TIAA, claiming its administration of the retirement loans violated
section 406 of ERISA. She alleged both that TIAA was liable as an
ERISA fiduciary and that TIAA was liable as a nonfiduciary for
breaches by the Plan Administrator, WashU. On March 28, 2018, the
Court granted TIAA's motion to dismiss in part, holding that Haley
had not plausibly alleged that TIAA was an ERISA fiduciary. It
sustained in part the Plaintiff's claims against TIAA as a
non-fiduciary, permitting leave to amend. Evaluating the Amended
Complaint, the Court again denied TIAA's Rule 12(b) motions on
March 27, 2019.
Haley then moved for class certification, seeking certification of
mandatory classes under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)
and 23(b)(2) as well as an opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(3). The
Court first denied class certification under 23(b)(1) and (b)(2),
but it certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class.
The class consisted of: All individual account retirement plans
governed by ERISA (the Plans) for which, at any time from Feb. 5,
2011 through the date of judgment: (a) Teachers Insurance and
Annuity Association (TIAA) provided services that included
collateralized loans for Plan participants (the Borrowing
Participants); (b) TIAA required the Borrowing Participants to
provide collateral in the amount of 110% of the principal balance
of the Loans, which collateral TIAA invested in its general
account; and (c) (i) TIAA charged Loan interest at a rate in excess
of the interest rate credited to Borrowing Participants on the
invested collateral; (ii) TIAA kept for or paid to itself amounts
earned on the amount of the invested collateral, equal to the
principal amount of the outstanding Loans, that were in excess of
the amounts credited to Borrowing Participants; (iii) the amounts
that TIAA credited to Borrowing Participants on the invested
collateral in excess of the principal amount of the Loan would have
received had the collateral remained in the Borrowing Participants'
designated investment options; and/or (iv) TIAA caused loss to the
Participant Borrowers and the Plans.
The class certified by the Court included almost one million
individual loan transactions and approximately 8,000 plans that
engaged TIAA's services during the class period.
The Court held the predominance requirement to be satisfied
because, though a non-fiduciary itself, TIAA's collateralized loan
program had the same result across all plans, participants, loans,
and transactions, since interest due on the TIAA loans exceeded the
borrowers' return on invested capital, even if there were
differences in the loans offered. The Court did not consider
whether certain affirmative defenses under ERISA impacted
predominance.
On Dec. 22, 2022, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding
that this Court erred in failing to consider individual issues
generated by the section 408 statutory defenses in its predominance
analysis in addition to evaluating whether the elements of a
plaintiff's section 406 claims alone raise such issues. Remanding
the case, the Court of Appeals specifically noted that that a
complete assessment of predominance demands that a district court
'consider all factual or legal issues' and classify them as subject
either to common or individual proof, including in this analysis
any affirmative defenses, such as the Section 408 exemptions.
On remand, this Court directed the parties to file supplemental
briefs addressing the Second Circuit's decision and denied the
Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery. On March 10, 2023, the
Plaintiff moved for certification of substantially the same class
=again under Rule 23(b)(3) and again requested supplemental
discovery if certification were to be denied. On March 31, 2023,
TIAA filed its supplemental brief opposing certification and
further discovery.
To assess whether common questions predominate in an ERISA case, a
court must begin with the terms of the relevant plans, to determine
if the 'essential elements of the cause of action' are common
throughout the class. TIAA argues that two statutory exemptions in
section 408 -- the "adequate consideration" defense and the
"participant loan program" defense -- raise significant
individualized issues and defeat predominance. Haley urges
re-certification of substantially the same class on remand, arguing
that the section 408 defenses at issue can be resolved on a class
wide basis. For that to be true, Haley must establish that the two
section 408 defenses at issue are amenable to general, class-wide
proof.
Judge Oetken opines that Haley fails to substantiate her assertions
of common questions that predominate. This precludes certification
because Rule 23 does not set out a mere pleading standard; it
requires Haley to prove that there are in fact sufficiently common
questions of law or fact. The adequacy-of-consideration defense
would fracture the class with individual issues. The common issues
that Plaintiff identifies as satisfying predominance are
insufficient to overcome the individual issues raised by section
408(b)(17). Differences in fees, plan structure, and assignment of
responsibility among the many plans negates the possibility of
common answers to any major issues.
Additional considerations confirm the lack of predominance, Judge
Oetken finds. He says it is beyond dispute that the myriad
individual issues implicated by the adequate consideration defense
go to liability, creating the most serious obstacles to
certification. Any adjudication of the adequate consideration
defense will raise a series of highly context specific inquiries,
especially given that the putatively aggregated ERISA plans
differed substantially from each other across time, space, value,
and jurisdiction. As such, the plethora of diverse contractual
standards involved in this case would result in highly
individualized inquiries.
The Plaintiff also fails to respond to TIAA's evidence showing
that, at minimum, some covered loans involved transfers, while
others did not (and so their beneficiaries suffered no injury).
Further, no centralized records exist differentiating transfer and
non-transfer loan accounts, requiring individual examination of all
8,000 plans. Haley fails the requirement of proof of written plan
documents showing core terms remained "constant" across the class,
which some courts additionally recognize as an independent reason
to deny certification.
Haley's final attempt to show that the adequacy of consideration
can be determined via generalized evidence on a class wide basis is
her proposal of a mean interest rate formula based on certain
averages or "targets" of interest and crediting rates across the
nearly one million transactions and approximately 8,000 plans which
would supposedly indicate inadequate consideration.
But this showing is insufficient, Judge Oetken finds. The Plaintiff
claims that evidence common to all plans establishes that Class
plan participants paid an average of 4.66% to receive a 1.66%
return. Yet this statement tells the Court nothing important about
the class because this evidence does not establish that any class
member paid 4.66% or received 1.66% in return. The evidence shows
that some paid more, and some less, while some received more, and
some less. The averages are probative of the parameters of the
statistical sample, not common traits within it.
Section 408(b)(1) exempts loans from liability under section 406 if
they are made in accordance with "specific provisions" of the plan
document, "bear a reasonable rate of interest," and are "adequately
secured." However, Judge Oetken need not reach the issue of whether
this defense also defeats predominance because the individualized
issues raised by the adequate consideration defense are sufficient
alone to defeat predominance.
Finally, the Plaintiff requests leave to seek certification under
Rule 23(c)(5) with subclasses to account for differences within the
class that would otherwise defeat predominance. Judge Oetken finds
no reasonable justification for the Plaintiff's failure to brief
subclasses on this motion. In her supplement briefing, the
Plaintiff again sought a class definition identical to that which
the Second Circuit vacated, and she relies on a virtually
indistinguishable set of arguments as before, even though the
Second Circuit has rejected them. But she has made no showing that
subclasses would adequately address the predominance issues
identified by the Second Circuit. The Plaintiff had 20 pages to
address issues relevant to the Second Circuit's opinion, which
identified subclasses as an available tool.
Given that context, Judge Oetken agrees with the Defendants: Haley
is not entitled to yet "another do-over." While it may or may not
have been possible to use subclasses to overcome otherwise fatal
predominance problems posed by the size and scope of the class in
the case, the Plaintiff failed to raise this argument or to conduct
discovery to facilitate it, despite having the opportunity to do so
for five years. Her request for leave to move again on these issues
is thus denied.
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfdu5ws from Leagle.com.
TESLA INC: Filing for Class Certification Due July 8, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT ORENDAIN, v. TESLA,
INC., Case No. 23-cv-01157-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina L.
Thompson entered a case management scheduling order as follows:
-- Trial Date: July 7, 2025
-- Final Pretrial June 12, 2025
Conference:
-- Last day to file joint pretrial May 22, 2025
statement, including objections:
-- Last day to file dispositive and April 1, 2025
Daubert motions:
-- Last day to file oppositions to April 15, 2025
dispositive and Daubert motions:
-- Last day to file replies in April 22, 2025
support of dispositive and
Daubert motions:
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: March 3, 2025
-- ADR Deadline: Dec. 12, 2024
-- Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Nov. 8, 2024
-- Last day to file motion for July 8, 2024
class certification:
-- Last day to file opposition to July 22, 2024
motion for class certification:
Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44vbhwV at no extra charge.[CC]
TORCH ELECTRONICS: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK ROMANO, et al., v.
TORCH ELECTRONICS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04043-BCW (W.D.
Mo.), the Defendants file an unopposed joint motion for extension
of time to file suggestions in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
The Defendants request that this court grant this unopposed motion
for an extension of time to file suggestions in opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and enter an order
allowing the Defendants until July 14, 2023, to file their
suggestions in opposition, and for such other and further relief as
this court deems necessary and proper under the circumstances.
The relief sought in the motion is not intended to cause undue
delay but, rather, simply to allow sufficient time for the
Defendants to prepare substantive responses to the Plaintiffs’
Motion for Class Certification aided by transcripts of the class
certification-related depositions of the named Plaintiffs, the
Defendants contend.
On March 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging a civil
RICO claim; violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act; and money lost under Section 434.030 of the Revised Statutes
of Missouri.
The parties have worked diligently to coordinate depositions of the
named the Plaintiffs and, as of the afternoon of June 20, 2023, the
parties have completed six of the seven named Plaintiffs'
depositions.
Torch Electronics is a slot machine company that offers gaming
options in truck stops and gas stations.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NX8ia7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ian T. Murphy, Esq.
Justin K. Gelfand, Esq.
MARGULIS GELFAND, LLC
7700 Bonhomme Ave., Ste. 750
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 390-0234
Facsimile: (314) 485-2264
E-mail: justin@margulisgelfand.com
ian@margulisgelfand.com
- and -
Todd P. Graves, Esq.
J. Aaron Craig, Esq.
GRAVES GARRETT, LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2700
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 256-3181
Facsimile: (816) 256-5958
E-mail: tgraves@gravesgarrett.com
acraig@gravesgarrett.com
- and -
Matthew A. Radefeld, Esq.
FRANK, JUENGEL & RADEFELD ATTORNEYS AT
LAW, P.C.
7710 Carondelet Ave., Suite 350
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-7777
E-mail: mradefeld@fjrdefense.com
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Opposes Addition of Callahan as Rep
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Metcalf v. TransPerfect
Translations Int'l Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-10104-ER-KHP (S.D.N.Y.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order permitting it to
file a sur-reply and, if necessary, an opposition to any
application to add Ms. Callahan as a class representative in the
action.
The Defendant request permission to file a sur-reply to respond to
that contention, which was raised for the first time in the
Plaintiffs' reply papers, and which constitutes an improper, thinly
veiled attempt to amend their complaint for a fourth time without
providing the Defendant an opportunity to oppose such an
amendment.
Initially, the Plaintiffs have waived the opportunity to add an
additional named representative.
The Plaintiffs have known for years that numerous putative class
members signed arbitration agreements, while they did not, and that
this fact could result in the denial of their motion for class
certification.
On December 14, 2020, in its Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint, the Defendant asserted arbitration as an affirmative
defense.
The Plaintiffs should not be permitted the opportunity to amend to
add Ms. Callahan at this late juncture; courts have rejected
similar late applications (and, if she is added, the Defendant must
be given an opportunity to oppose the application and to seek
discovery from her), the Defendant claim.
In short, to permit the Plaintiffs to insert Ms. Callahan as a
named plaintiff at this late juncture would significantly prejudice
the Defendant, who has had no previous indication that the
Plaintiffs intended to add Ms. Callahan as a named plaintiff and no
opportunity to take discovery from her, the Defendant adds.
TransPerfect provides language services and technology solutions.
The Company provides translation, interpretation, over the
interpretation, and linguistic validation.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 20, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44682fJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Turinsky, Esq.
DLA Piper LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10020-1104
Telephone: (212) 335-4566
Facsimile: (917) 778-8631
E-mail: Daniel.Turinsky@dlapiper.com
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Class Cert Replies Due August 30 in Goble Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Goble v. Trumbull
Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-05577 (S.D. Ohio, Filed Oct.
26, 2020), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order
granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file
response/reply as to sealed motion class certification, appointment
of class representatives and appointment of class counsel.
-- Replies are due by Aug. 30, 2023.
-- The Plaintiff Rebuttal Expert is due by Aug. 30, 2023.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.
Trumbull operates as an insurance company.[CC]
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due August 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN GOBLE and PAULA
GOBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-05577-SDM-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order extending
the deadline for them to file a reply in support of class
certification and to submit a rebuttal expert report on class
certification.
The Plaintiffs, without opposition from Trumbull, request that the
Court grants their motion and extend the current reply and rebuttal
expert deadlines such that the following deadlines will apply:
a. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification due
by
August 30, 2023; and
b. The Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert on class certification due by
August 30, 2023.
In accordance with the Cour's Feb. 27, 2023, Order, the Plaintiffs
filed their class certification motion and disclosed their primary
expert on class certification -- Toby Johnson -- on March 10, 2023.
Trumbull filed its opposition to class certification and disclosed
its expert -- Heather Albright -- on May 18, 2023.
The Plaintiffs contacted Trumbull to request available dates to
depose its expert, Heather Albright. The Parties have conferred
about the date for Ms. Albright's deposition.
Trumbull Insurance provides fire and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XIPOi0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES PSC
110 W. Vine Street, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (800) 614-1957
E-mail: erik@eplo.law
- and -
T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
SNODGRASS LAW LLC
100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 448-2600
E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com
- and -
Stephen G. Whetstone, Esq.
WHETSTONE LEGAL, LLC
2 N. Main Street, Unit 2
Thornville, OH 43076
Telephone: (740) 785-7730
E-mail: steve@whetstonelegal.com
- and -
J. Brandon Mcwherter, Esq.
MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
E-mail: brandon@msb.law
UBS GROUP: Credit Suisse Swiss Investors Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Owen Walker, writing for The Financial Times, reports that UBS is
facing a new legal challenge to its takeover of Credit Suisse after
a group of leading Swiss investors joined a class-action lawsuit,
the latest sign of the domestic backlash to the deal.
Ethos Foundation, which represents institutional investors owing
about 5 per cent of stock in both banks, on July 4 said it was
signing up to a campaign led by LegalPass, a start-up based in
Lausanne.
The takeover, which was orchestrated by Swiss authorities in March,
denied shareholders in both banks a vote on the deal. The SFr3bn
($3.35bn) UBS paid for Credit Suisse was less than half the bank's
market value on the final trading day before the deal was sealed.
Under the agreement, Credit Suisse investors received one UBS share
for every 22.48 they owned in the failed bank.
"Since [financial regulator] Finma has decided to withdraw
shareholders' voting rights, the only way to challenge the exchange
ratio is to go to court, as LegalPass intends to do," said Vincent
Kaufmann, chief executive of the Ethos Foundation.
The LegalPass campaign, which is the first Swiss shareholder suit
to challenge the terms of the takeover, aims to recover a cash
payment for claimants based on the difference between a value of
Credit Suisse that would be set by the court and the one paid by
UBS.
The suit joins a growing list of legal claims over the deal. At
least two law firms — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and
Pallas — are representing bondholders who were controversially
wiped out when $17bn of additional tier 1 securities were written
down as part of the transaction.
Credit Suisse staff have also enquired about launching legal action
after their bonuses linked to the AT1s were also wiped out. Lawyers
in the US, meanwhile, are working on cases that target individual
former managers at Credit Suisse for their part in the bank's
downfall.
The challenges come at a time when a public backlash to the deal is
building within Switzerland ahead of national elections in
October.
More than three-quarters of polled voters want the megabank to be
split up, while Swiss parliamentarians voted against the SFr109bn
financial support package underlying the deal in a largely symbolic
move.
UBS did not respond to a request for comment by the time of
publication.
The Financial Times reported on July 3 that UBS executives aimed to
make clear at the bank's second-quarter results next month that its
rescue of Credit Suisse would not rely on funding from Swiss
taxpayers. [GN]
UMG RECORDINGS: Sobol Suit Seeks to Vacate June 13, 2023 Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sobol, et al. v. UMG
Recordings, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01091-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order vacating the June 13,
2023, Order, denying the Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion on the
Defendants' work made for hire defense and re-activate the Motion
nunc pro tunc for a substantive decision on the merits
On February 13, 2023, the Court entered an Order approving the
parties' stipulation and staying the case pending the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's ruling on the Plaintiffs'
petition for permission to appeal the denial of class certification
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).
Additionally, on Feb. 13, 2023, the Court sua sponte denied the
motion without prejudice to its renewal following the expiration of
the stay.
On May 16, 2023, the Second Circuit denied the Plaintiffs'
petition. On June 13, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
because the Plaintiffs had not requested reactivation within 21
days of the expiration of the stay.
UMG Recordings provides musical services. The Company offers
records, tapes, and other musical services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CZsqmM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roy W. Arnold, Esq.
BLANKROME
Union Trust Building
501 Grant Street, Suite 850
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 932-2814
Facsimile: (412) 592-0959
E-mail: roy.arnold@blankrome.com
UNCHCS: Bone Bid for Permanent Injunction Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BONE, TIMOTHY MILES,
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, INC., AND DISABILITY RIGHTS
NORTH CAROLINA, v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00994-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Thomas D.
Schroeder entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction.
A Judgment and Permanent Injunction shall issue by separate order
providing as follows:
-- The Defendant UNCHCS, its officers, agents, servants, and
employees, and other persons acting on behalf of or in
concert with it who receive actual notice of this
Permanent Injunction by personal service or otherwise,
shall:
Provide the Plaintiff Timothy Miles, upon his request, with
equally effective access to all material information UNCHCS
provides its patients, which shall include, upon his request,
large print documents in an accessible format; provided,
however, that where such documents are not available at the
time
of the clinical encounter and upon Miles’s request, UNCHCS
shall
provide an alternative method of communication, such as by
reading the communication to Miles in a private location that
best maintains Miles’s privacy and independence until
UNCHCS can
provide, as soon as practicable, large print copies.
Provide DRNC constituent Dr. Ricky Scott, upon his request,
equally effective access to all material information that
UNCHCS
provides its patients, which shall include, upon his request,
accessible electronic documents configured for use by screen
reading devices such as JAWS to the extent UNCHCS has control
over such documents for manipulation for use by screen
readers,
or, upon Dr. Scott’s request, in Braille; provided,
however,
that where such documents are not available at the time of
the
clinical encounter and upon Dr. Scott's request, UNCHCS shall
provide an alternative method of communication, such as by
reading the communication to Dr. Scott in a private location
that best maintains Dr. Scott's privacy and independence
until
UNCHCS can provide, as soon as practicable, electronic or
Braille copies.
The Court says, "The injunction will remain in effect for three
years from the date of entry. Any petition for costs and
attorneys’ fees may be filed no later than 30 days from the date
of the entry of the Judgment and Injunction."
The court finds that three years is a reasonable and appropriate
duration for the narrow injunction in this case. This coincides
with the Plaintiffs' request. This lawsuit began four and a half
years ago. Yet since that time, and even with the specter of
litigation, UNCHCS has failed to provide Miles and Dr. Scott
consistently with effective communications.
With the damages claims of the case resolved, the Plaintiffs
Timothy Miles, the National Federation of the Blind, Inc. and
Disability Rights North Carolina seek permanent injunctive relief
under various federal disability statutes to remedy what they
contend is the failure of the Defendant University of North
Carolina Health Care System to provide Miles and non-party Dr.
Ricky Scott, both of whom are legally blind, with meaningfully
accessible communications.
On December 14, 2022, the court heard oral argument on the motion.
But because, on the day before the hearing, UNCHCS updated the
record on the status of its efforts to provide services to
sight-impaired patients, the court instructed the parties to meet
and confer and to file a joint status report outlining their
respective positions as to whether the Plaintiffs maintained that a
permanent injunction was still warranted in light of the changes to
certain policies and practices that UNCHCS reported making during
the course of this litigation.
On January 30, 2023, the parties filed their joint status report,
largely maintaining their earlier positions concerning the
propriety of injunctive relief.
University of North is an integrated health care system owned by
the state of North Carolina and based in Chapel Hill.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pGNdIy at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED PARCEL: Summary Adjudication as to Moore's FCRA Claim Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAWNTE MOORE, Plaintiff and Appellant v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A164894
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District,
Division One, affirms the trial court's order granting UPS' motion
for summary adjudication as to her claim under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Moore appeals from an order granting defendant United Parcel
Service, Inc.'s motion for summary adjudication as to her claim
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") (15 U.S.C. Section
1681 et seq. She alleges the trial court erred in determining
willfulness as a matter of law. The parties further dispute whether
Moore has standing to bring her FCRA claim.
Moore applied for a part-time, seasonal position with UPS. As part
of that process, she accessed and completed certain documents
through UPS' online application system. Through the Application
Center, Moore completed each document by clicking on the applicable
link, which then took her to a separate webpage containing that
document. She would then click a button labeled "Continue" to
return to the Application Center.
One of the documents Moore completed via the Application Center was
entitled "FCRA Disclosure." UPS obtained a background report in
connection with Moore's employment application. Moore was
subsequently hired by UPS. Shortly thereafter, Moore terminated her
employment with UPS.
The Appellant filed a putative class action against UPS alleging
violations of (1) section 1681b(b)(2)(A) of the FCRA, (2) sections
1681d(a)(1) and 1681g(c) of the FCRA, and (3) Civil Code section
1785 et seq. The complaint also asserted UPS failed to timely pay
all final wages as required by the Labor Code and engaged in unfair
competition. It sought all available remedies under section 1681n
of the FCRA, including statutory damages and/or actual damages,
punitive damages, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorney
fees and costs. If the class pursues statutory damages for every
person who applied for employment with UPS, UPS represented that
amount could "theoretically exceed $1 billion."
UPS removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and subsequently moved to dismiss the
matter. As relevant to this appeal, UPS alleged Moore failed to
state a claim under the FCRA and lacked standing under article III
of the United States Constitution (article III). It argued its
disclosure complied with the FCRA, Moore had not plead any
recoverable damages, and Moore did not allege an injury-in-fact
sufficient to confer standing.
In response, Moore filed a motion to remand the matter to the
California superior court. In relevant part, she argued that since
there is no Article III standing due to a lack of concrete harm,
this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and therefore
the entire action should be remanded.
The District Court agreed with Moore and remanded the matter to
superior court. It explained the allegations of invaded 'privacy
and statutory rights,' an unexplained reference to 'lost money or
property,' and a request for 'restitution' were insufficient to
describe a concrete and particularized harm. The court further
noted the complaint lacked any allegations of confusion, error, or
other harm from the alleged violations. It found Moore's bare
procedural violations insufficient to confer standing.
Upon remand, Moore filed a motion for summary adjudication,
contending that the disclosure was improperly embedded within a
webpage, contained not just extraneous but also misleading and
confusing language, including language that amounts to a release
and referenced unrelated privacy rights. Moore asserted UPS'
inclusion of these materials in the FCRA disclosure was a willful
violation of the FCRA as a matter of law."
UPS also filed a motion for summary adjudication. UPS asserted its
disclosure complied with the FCRA and, even if the disclosure
violated the FCRA, any such violation was not willful. UPS argued
that without a willful violation, Moore could not sustain her FCRA
claim because she conceded she did not suffer actual damages.
The trial court issued a tentative ruling denying both Moore's and
UPS's motions for summary adjudication. It found UPS' disclosure
notice did not comply with the FCRA but concluded there are triable
issues of material fact regarding whether UPS' violations were
'willful' for the purpose of assessing statutory penalties in the
absence of evidence of actual damages. The court took the matter
under submission, noting both parties wanted the court to decide
the issue of willfulness.
Ultimately, the trial court denied Moore's motion for summary
adjudication and granted UPS' motion. It first agreed with Moore
that certain aspects of UPS' disclosure violated the FCRA. Moore
dismissed her remaining claims without prejudice, and the trial
court entered judgment in UPS' favor. Moore timely appealed.
On appeal, Moore argues the trial court erred by determining
willfulness as a matter of law. She contends willfulness is a
question of fact for the jury and UPS failed to demonstrate there
were no material facts in dispute. In response, UPS contends Moore
waived such an argument by failing to raise it with the trial
court, willfulness could properly be decided as a matter of law,
and the trial court correctly determined UPS's conduct was not
willful. In supplemental briefing, UPS further argued Moore lacked
standing to bring her FCRA claim.
The Court of Appeals opines that Moore waived her argument that the
trial court erred in deciding the issue of willfulness. At no point
did Moore contend UPS' motion raised a factual question improper
for summary adjudication. Moreover, the court took the matter under
submission, noting both parties wanted the court to decide the
issue of willfulness. Moore did not contest this statement, and her
supplemental brief on willfulness solely argued the issue could be
decided as a matter of law. Accordingly, Moore cannot now argue the
trial court erred in doing so.
Even if Moore had not conceded this issue, the Court of Appeals
concludes the trial court did not err in finding willfulness as a
matter of law. It opines various courts, including the United
States Supreme Court, have discussed recklessness as setting forth
an objective standard. Such an approach mirrors that advocated by
the parties in this matter. Namely, that the language of the
disclosure, the applicable statutory provisions, and existing case
law provide an adequate framework from which the court could assess
whether UPS acted willfully.
Finally, even assuming Moore is entitled to amend her complaint to
allege standing, the Court of Appeals need not remand the matter
because it affirms the trial court's order granting summary
adjudication.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment. UPS
may recover its costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4srewcrk from Leagle.com.
UNITED SERVICES: Ordered to Pay $573,000 in Attorney's Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Thompson, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that
USAA has been ordered to pay nearly $573,000 in attorney's fees
alone after a federal judge granted preliminary approval to a class
action lawsuit accusing it of underpaying taxes in total loss
claims.
The Georgia lawsuit, initially filed in 2021, represents about
9,000 people who were allegedly not fairly compensated for Title Ad
Valorem Tax (TAVT) funder their USAA policies. It is seeking a
settlement of nearly $2.3 million, with each class member owed
about $252.
The preliminary approval granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement.
The approval also greenlighted a request to award attorneys' fees
and costs.
A proposed agreement filed in May states that case costs were
expected to total $15,000 on top of an estimated $564,434.30 in
attorney fees, accounting for 25% of the class cash benefit.
The lawsuit was initially launched by Jahazel Black, whose 2009
Honda Civic Sedan LXS was declared a total loss following an Oct.
2, 2018 crash. It was insured under USSA, which determined the
vehicle had a base value of $5,291 and an adjusted value of
$4,345.
After adding and subtracting a number of fees, it made a final
payment of $4,277.10, the lawsuit said, adding that the figure
included $49.25 for state sales tax.
However, Black contended that she was underpaid in taxes given that
the TAVT on her vehicle was 7% of its value, meaning she should
have received $344.75 and was underpaid by $295.50.
"Plaintiff also was harmed by USAA's underpayment of license plate
transfer fees by a minimum of $5," the lawsuit said. "USAA breached
its Policy with Plaintiff and violated Georgia law by failing to
pay all the TAVT and license plate transfer fees due on Plaintiff's
total loss claim."
The case is expected to be settled during a Dec. 13 hearing.
USAA did not contest the proposed settlement agreement. It did not
respond to Repairer Driven News query for comment on the case and
whether, if the allegations prove true, it will take measures to
ensure drivers are properly compensated for taxes in total loss
claims going forward.
The case is among several working through the courts related to
alleged claims underpayments in total loss payouts.
Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court has granted class
certification to a New Jersey woman who filed a complaint against
GEICO for allegedly failing to pay the title and transfer fees for
her total loss vehicle.
Diane McCoy filed a class action complaint against the company in
2020, detailing how she was involved in a total loss vehicle
collision in January 2018 while insured by GEICO.
According to the lawsuit, GEICO, through a third-party vehicle
valuation provider, determined the vehicle had a base value of
$3,777 and an adjusted value of $3,838. The insurer added $254.27
for sales tax and subtracted $500 for the deductible for a total
payout of $3,592.27, the complaint said.
However, it did not cover the cost of title transfer and tag fee
transfers, the legal filing said.
Last October, GEICO agreed to pay over $19 million to nearly
227,000 policyholders to settle allegations that it did not pay
them the full amount owed in total loss claims.
The federal class action lawsuit was filed in 2019 and combined
last year with a second suit filed in 2020. The combined complaint
alleges that GEICO breached private auto insurance policies by
improperly calculating or failing to include sales tax for the
purpose of buying a replacement vehicle in total loss claims. Some
plaintiffs also alleged GEICO didn't pay local and state regulatory
fees. At least one plaintiff claims his sales tax wasn't paid
because his vehicle was leased rather than owned, which the suit
says goes against policy terms.
The settlement class is split into two types of plaintiffs -- those
owed sales tax and those owed regulatory fees. Class members
include GEICO private passenger auto physical damage insurance
policyholders whose claims were adjusted under Section III
(comprehensive or collision coverage) of the carrier's policy
during the class period for which GEICO paid total loss claims and
the policyholders didn't keep the salvaged vehicles. The class
period is from June 27, 2015 if insured by GEICO General, Oct. 23,
2016 if insured by GEICO Indemnity, or June 30, 2017 if insured by
GEICO Casualty or Government Employees Insurance Company through
Aug. 27, 2020.
The majority of the class members include those who are allegedly
owed regulatory fees.
This isn't the first time USAA has faced a lawsuit related to total
loss claims.
Last year, a lawsuit filed in Texas against USAA moved forward as a
class-action case on behalf of thousands of policyholders whose
vehicles were allegedly deemed total losses without their consent
and, as a result, their registrations were revoked and the vehicles
titled as salvage, or non-repairable, by the state. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Service Employees
International Union, Local 73 v. Board of Trustees of the
University of Illinois, Case No. 2:22-cv-02099-JBM-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 June 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CY5bJH at no extra charge.[CC]
VETERANS' HOME: Faces Class Action Over COVID Deaths
----------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Fiandaca, writing for CBS News, reports that the families of
veterans who died at the Chelsea Veterans Home during the pandemic
are demanding answers in a class action lawsuit. One family told
WBZ-TV's I-Team their father's death was preventable.
John Griffin remembers the man who raised him as a loving, gentle
father. Anthony Griffin was also a Korean War veteran who valiantly
served his country. In April of 2020, he was living in what is now
called the Veterans' Home in Chelsea, when a COVID outbreak hit. He
died within days. John told the I-Team he does not believe the
people running the home knew what they were doing, claiming they
had all of the veterans with COVID in one ward with just a curtain
between them.
In all, there were 31 coronavirus deaths at the home.
Eric Sheehan was the Assistant Secretary of Veterans Services at
the time. The Marine veteran and the woman who oversaw the nursing
staff, Beth Scheffler, talked to the I-Team last summer. They said
they were fired after repeatedly sounding the alarm about the lack
of infection control and questioned how the home was being run.
They have both filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the state.
Sheehan said there is always a suspicion in these cases that
whistleblowers are rogue employees. But he told WBZ both he and
Beth had decades of exemplary public service and wrote the health
care regulations for long term care facilities. He told the I-Team,
"I think the Baker administration failed veterans."
A state Inspector General's report released in January, blasted
then-Governor Charlie Baker's administration, claiming it knew
about the problems in the Chelsea home and did nothing to protect
the residents.
Inspectors found in 2022 that rooms were in terrible condition,
with feces, dead rodents, dirt and bugs, and that the conditions
pointed to a "catastrophic failure of the home's leadership."
Another report said veterans at the home had been found lying
"soaked in urine and sitting in feces."
The leadership team included the then-superintendent of the
facility, Eric Johnson. After the IG's report was released, the
I-Team caught up with Johnson but he refused to talk about the
allegations. Days after our investigation aired, Governor Maura
Healey fired Johnson.
Since then, families of veterans who died of COVID in Chelsea filed
a class action lawsuit, claiming former and current state officials
failed to safeguard the residents in their care.
In a statement to the I-Team, Anthony Antonellis, the attorney
representing the families, said:
"Our clients are American heroes. We are hoping to get answers for
them and closure for the families involved in this devastating
experience. Senators Warren and Markey asked for an independent
state investigation into the Chelsea Soldiers Home Covid outbreak,
but that investigation into the deaths of these Veterans was either
never done or was not made public. Our veterans and their families
deserve better. They deserve answers. We want to know why the
Soldiers Home did not follow clearly established infectious disease
protocols and why the Home was unsanitary and unfit to live in. The
inspector general wrote earlier this year that veterans were found
lying soaked in urine and sitting in feces and lived in rooms that
were in terrible condition, with feces, dead rodents, dirt and bugs
present. The inspector general report demonstrates a catastrophic
failure of the Home's leadership. We want answers to why the
veterans were deprived of basic Constitutional rights. We hope this
lawsuit prevents this improper treatment of our country's veterans
from ever happening again."
John Griffin said his father and the other men who served their
country deserved better.
"I feel as if they did not do enough. This shouldn't have happened.
You're in a soldier's home, you should be taken care of that's your
top priority," he told WBZ.
In 2022, the Baker administration agreed to pay more than $56
million to settle a lawsuit with the families of the veterans who
died in the Holyoke Soldiers Home.
The I-Team contacted the Executive Office of Veterans' Services for
a comment on the Chelsea lawsuit and this statement was sent:
"Secretary Santiago has prioritized making changes at both
Massachusetts Veterans Homes to ensure that residents receive the
quality services they have earned and fought for. We are committed
to laying a solid foundation for a brighter future, moving beyond
the challenges of the past, and creating a better tomorrow for our
heroes." [GN]
VIDEOTRON LTD: Court Authorizes Residential Customers' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie-Ève Martel, writing for La Presse Canadienne, reports that
clients of Videotron's residential services may be eligible for a
class action authorized on July 3 by Quebec Superior Court.
The class action for damages concerns the billing of interest not
provided for in the contract, or the non-reimbursement of prepaid
services after termination of a service agreement, that the
company's residential customers may have suffered between Oct. 20,
2018 and Feb. 3, 2023, according to a notice published by Videotron
on its website.
As the court has not yet ruled on the basis of the class action, it
has not yet determined whether compensation in favour of the
plaintiffs should be paid.
The issues in dispute are whether Videotron was entitled to charge
interest to its residential customers, and whether it was entitled
to withhold an amount equivalent to payment for services not
rendered after the termination of the service contract of other
customers.
"Videotron denies the allegations by (plaintiff) Richard Gagne and
challenges the grounds of the class action," the company says below
the notice.
Customers affected by this class action do not have to do anything
to be part of it. Those who wish to be excluded must contact the
registry of Quebec Superior Court in the district of Quebec City by
Aug. 6 at 4:30 p.m.
The law firms involved in the class action are BGA Inc. and Garnier
Ouellette Avocats, both based in Quebec City. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: New Jersey Court Narrows Claims in Mishkin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY MISHKIN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-06127-NLH-EAP (D.N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey grants in part and
denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VGA") is an entity
incorporated in New Jersey and headquartered in Herndon, Virginia
that imports, distributes, sells, markets, services, or warrants
"class vehicles" through its network of dealerships. Class vehicles
are defined in the complaint as "any 2012 through 2017 model year
Audi vehicles equipped with a 2.0-liter turbocharged engine
including the following Audi models: TT, A3, A4, A5, A6, Q3, and
Q5.
Mishkin is a resident of St. Louis, Missouri who purchased a used
2013 Audi Q5 2.0T from a dealer in St. Peters, Missouri on April
17, 2017 and asserts that he represents a class of "all persons or
entities in the state of Missouri who purchased or leased a Class
Vehicle."
The Plaintiff alleges that his vehicle has had a long history of
burning excessive oil and that he has taken it to be serviced on at
least three separate occasions to attempt to rectify the issue but
has been unsuccessful. He first took his vehicle to Bob's
Transmission and Automotive Service in Maryland Heights, Missouri
and RPM Car Care, Inc. in Brentwood, Missouri on Sept. 9, 2021 and
Sept. 28, 2021, respectively, both resulting in extensive testing
and cylinder repairs. He was informed at RPM Car Care, Inc. that
the oil-consumption problem was caused by a scoring issue that
affected the piston rings. Finally, on Oct. 28, 2021, the Plaintiff
took his vehicle to Plaza Audi, a certified dealership in Creve
Coeur, Missouri, where additional testing was performed and it was
recommended to him that the vehicle's pistons be replaced at an
estimated cost of $9,342.10.
The Plaintiff claims that he reviewed warranty materials,
advertisements, and promotional literature prior to his purchase,
but VGA failed to disclose the fact that class vehicles suffer from
a piston defect that could result in excessive oil usage and engine
failure. The alleged design, manufacturing, or workmanship defect
results in piston rings failing to seal properly and the inability
to sustain engine heat and pressure -- resulting in fracture and
further leading to potential complications including excessive oil
consumption, loss of compression, circulation of piston remnants in
the fuel system, and total or partial loss of engine power. VGA's
alleged omissions were material to the Plaintiff because, had the
defect been disclosed, the Plaintiff would have been aware of it
and either declined to purchase his vehicle or paid less for it.
There have been numerous complaints regarding the 2.0-liter
turbocharged engine since its broad release in 2009, according to
the Plaintiff, and VGA acquired information regarding the alleged
defect via sources unavailable to him and the class members,
including testing, complaints, and sales data of replacement parts.
VGA did not disclose the existence of the alleged defect, however,
and instead took affirmative steps to conceal it such as issuing a
Technical Service Bulletin to authorized repair facilities but not
class members. VGA is required to disclose defects and related
information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
("NHTSA") and monitors NHTSA complaints as part of its efforts to
identify defects. The Plaintiff asserts that VGA unlawfully failed
to disclose the defect -- the knowledge of which was in its
exclusive control -- and thus induced him and the class members
into purchasing vehicles they would not have otherwise purchased or
paid less for and inflated the secondary vehicle market.
The complaint brings forth four counts alleging (1) violations of
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), (2) fraud by
concealment or omission, (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4)
unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks orders certifying the class
action, requiring VGA to cease its alleged conduct, enjoining VGA
from further concealment, and requiring that he and the class
members be refunded the cost of class vehicles or repairs;
compensatory, actual, treble, punitive, and statutory damages;
reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and other relief determined
to be just and appropriate.
The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on June 23, 2022. The Defendant moved to
dismiss or transfer on Sept. 12, 2022. District Judge Sarah E.
Pitlyk, in an Oct. 11, 2022 memorandum and order, transferred the
case to this District pursuant to the first-filed rule in light of
the similar action before the Court, Rieger v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. (Docket No. 1:21-cv-10546).
Following transfer, the Court directed the parties to refile the
motion to dismiss and related opposition and reply in accordance
with the Local Civil Rules. VGA thereafter refiled its motion to
dismiss, which was followed by a timely opposition and reply.
The Court exercises jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which provides district courts
with original jurisdiction over class actions in which the matter
in controversy exceeds $5 million exclusive of interest and costs
and the parties are minimally diverse, i.e., any class member is a
citizen of a different state than any defendant.
Judge Hillman first examines Counts 1 and 2, the Plaintiff's MMPA
and fraud claims. VGA contends that the complaint's allegations are
conclusory and fail to satisfy Rule 9(b). The Plaintiff alleges
that he reviewed VGA's warranty, advertising, and promotional
materials prior to his purchase, none of which disclosed the
alleged defect.
Reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff
and taking the alleged means by which VGA allegedly knew or should
have known of the defect together, Judge Hillman holds that
dismissal would be inappropriate. He says the allegation that the
Defendant knew of the defect via NHTSA complaints in addition to
other, internal data was sufficient to survive dismissal.
Judge Hillman likewise denies VGA's motion to dismiss as to the
Plaintiff's fraud claim on substantially the same grounds. As has
been recognized in at least one other district, the duty to
disclose under Missouri law when the defendant possesses superior
knowledge "leaves significantly more leeway for the Court to find a
duty to disclose" than under the common laws of other states. He
agrees and holds that the allegations in the complaint are
therefore sufficient to proceed past the dismissal stage.
Next, Judge Hillman examines Count 3, the Plaintiff's
negligent-misrepresentation claim. VGA contends that the
Plaintiff's negligent-misrepresentation claim is barred by the
economic-loss doctrine. In his opposition, the Plaintiff counters
that his claims fit under the public-duty exception to the
economic-loss doctrine as recognized by B.L. Jet Sales, Inc. v.
Alton Packaging Corp., 724 S.W.2d 669 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987), and that
he has adequately pled VGA's failure to disclose defects as
required by statute and regulation.
Judge Hillman declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's negligence claim.
Though the economic-loss doctrine may ultimately apply, the
Plaintiff has not brought a contract claim and it is unclear at
this stage in litigation what -- if any -- contract is relevant to
this action.
The fourth and final count of the complaint is for unjust
enrichment. VGA challenges the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim
by asserting that the complaint fails to establish a lack of an
adequate legal remedy or that his purchase from a third party
conferred a direct benefit to VGA. The Plaintiff responds that
though he may not recover under both legal and equitable theories,
he may pursue both in the alternative at this stage. He further
argues that VGA's argument that his purchase did not confer a
direct benefit to VGA ignores the fact that he purchased a class
vehicle from a third party and that he and class members conferred
a benefit to VGA by overpaying for class vehicles sold at
artificially inflated prices.
Judge Hillman finds support for the Plaintiff's
alternative-pleading argument. However, even if he were to permit
alternative pleading, Judge Hillman finds that the Plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed for failure to allege
that the Plaintiff conferred a benefit to VGA. The complaint does
not explain how VGA profited from the Plaintiff's purchase from an
unaffiliated third-party dealer or even claim that VGA originally
sold the vehicle to the third party. Accordingly, because the
Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead that VGA was enriched by a
benefit conferred by him, his unjust enrichment claim is
dismissed.
For the reasons stated, Judge Hillman grants in part and denies in
part VGA's motion to dismiss. An Order consistent with his Opinion
will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yk7dd8cv from Leagle.com.
JAMES E. CECCHI -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., ROSELAND, N.J., On behalf of the
Plaintiff.
HOMER B. RAMSEY -- hramsey@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.,
NEW YORK, N.Y., C. MICHAEL ROWAN, JR., HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLC,
LIVINGSTON, N.J., On behalf of Defendant Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.
WELSPUN PIPES: 8th Circuit Ruling in FLSA Class Suit Discussed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Emilee N. Crowther, Esq., and George
J. Schaller, Esq., of Duane Morris LLP, disclosed that in Vines et
al. v. Welspun Pipes, Inc., et al.., No. 21-3537, 2023 U.S. App.
LEXIS 16425 (8th Cir. June 29, 2023), the Eighth Circuit affirmed a
district court's ruling in approving a settlement of an underlying
class and collective action that reduced an attorneys' fee award to
$500. The Eight Circuit determined that the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it reduced the fee award on the basis
that plaintiffs were not a "prevailing party" on appeal.
For employers facing wage & claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and state law related wage-claims, this decision is instructive
in terms of what reviewing courts will consider for attorney's fee
awards, particularly where a party's conduct may be considered
unprofessional and/or abusive.
Case Background
In the underlying case, Vines I, Anthony Vines and Dominique Lewis
(collectively "Plaintiffs") brought a class and collective action
against Defendants, Welspun Pipes Inc., Welspun Tubular LLC, and
Welspun USA, Inc. (collectively "Welspun" or "Defendants"), under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act (AMWA). Id. at 1-2. Ultimately, the district court approved a
settlement of the case. Id. at 2.
After approval of the settlement, Plaintiffs' counsel moved for an
award of attorneys' fees and costs. Id. Plaintiffs sought $96,000
in attorneys' fees following the $270,000 settlement deal. The
district court rejected the request. It found significant that
Plaintiffs' law firm assigned 17 lawyers, plus staffers, to watch
the district court deemed a "run-of-the-mill" FLSA case, saying
such cases were not intended to be "conduits for funneling unearned
fees into lawyers' pockets." Id. As a result, the district court
partially granted the motion, awarding $1.00 in fees to the
plaintiffs because of the billing practices of their law firm,
Sanford Law Firm, PLLC ("SLF"). Id. Alternatively, the district
court noted that it would award $25,000 in fees if $1.00 was
improper. Id. Plaintiffs' appealed the district court's decision.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit "vacated the award of attorneys'
fees," "[b]ecause the record contained no lodestar calculation."
Id. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case for the "lodestar
calculation" and expressly noted the district court had discretion
"to consider. . . the party's unprofessional conduct in the case,"
for purposes of reducing any award of attorneys' fee. Id. at 2.
On remand, the district court calculated a lodestar of $14,056.50.
Id. However, relative to the award of attorneys' fees, the district
reduced the award to $500 "based on the SLF's egregious conduct."
Id. The district court opined that the reduction was proper for "a
multitude of reasons" including "SLF's rejection of a
‘substantial settlement offer,' ‘an unearned fee demand,' and
‘deterrence for [SLF's] unprofessional conduct.'" Id.
In response, Plaintiffs' moved to amend the judgment and for leave
to file a supplemental petition for costs and fees. Id. The
district court denied Plaintiffs motion on the grounds that
"[Plaintiffs] were not a prevailing party on appeal ‘because
there [had] been no definitive ruling on the fees award and all
[p]laintiffs' other claims for relief were unequivocally rejected
by the Eighth Circuit." Id. at 3.
Plaintiffs appealed the attorneys' fees award a second time. Id. In
addition, the Plaintiffs' counsel argued the district court's
decision was erroneous for: (i) "award[ing] a fee amount … not
based on the lodestar calculation"; (ii) "us[ing] the FLSA's
statutory fee award as a vehicle for sanctions"; (iii) "fail[ing]
to provide [them] with notice and an opportunity to respond prior
to entering sanctions"; and (iv) "f[inding] that [they] were not
prevailing parties and refus[ing] to award any fees related to the
appeal." Id.
The Eighth Circuit's Decision
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court in
the second appeal. It found no abuse of discretion in the district
court's award of $500.00 in attorneys' fees. Id. The Eighth Circuit
held that the district court complied with its directive on
calculating the award of attorneys' fees and lodestar reduction by
"provid[ing] ample justification" based on "SLF's unprofessional
conduct." Id. The Eighth Circuit reasoned that "[t]he trial court
knows the case best. It knows what the lawyers have done, and how
well they have done it. It knows what these efforts are worth."
Id.
The Eighth Circuit also rejected Plaintiffs' argument that the
district court erred in determining Plaintiffs "[were] not
prevailing parties." Id. The Eighth Circuit acknowledged the FLSA
"allow[s] a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant,
and costs of the action," in addition to any judgment to the
plaintiff. Id. at 4. But, "[i]n general, if a plaintiff prevails in
the district court, but then seeks and fails to obtain greater
relief on appeal, he or she ‘will be hard pressed to demonstrate
an entitlement to . . . attorney's fees on appeal.'" Id.
The Eighth Circuit held that Plaintiffs "did not obtain the
‘greater relief on appeal' that they sought in Vines I and
therefore were not prevailing parties. It rejected Plaintiffs'
argument "that the district court erred in denying the March 2020
motion for approval of settlement." Id. Second, it also rejected
Plaintiffs' request to "reassign the case to a new district judge
on remand." Id.
For these reason, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
district court.
Implications For Employers
The ruling of the Eighth Circuit is well worth a read by employers
who are often confronted with settlement demands where counsel for
employees seek hefty awards of attorneys' fees far in excess of the
value of their clients' unpaid overtime.
Employers that are confronted with appeals of attorney's fee
awards, should take note that the Eighth Circuit in Vines relied
heavily on the district court's recitations of the procedural facts
for its decision. Further, from a practical standpoint, employers
should carefully evaluate attorney's actions for misconduct during
wage & hour settlements when an attorney's fee award is requested.
[GN]
XTO ENERGY: Salvatora Amended Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER A. SALVATORA, et
al., v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01097-WSS-CRE (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman, IV entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification is
granted in part and denied in part.
-- Class certification is granted under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3), but it is denied under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
-- The Plaintiffs Roger A. Salvatora, Sandra E. Salvatora,
D&M
Marburger Family Enterprises, L.P., Beasley's Nurseries,
Inc., and Rodney L. Lang and Bonita A. Lang are hereby
appointed as Class Representatives for Count II of the
Third
Amended Complaint.
-- Rodney L. Lang and Bonita A. Lang are hereby appointed as
Class Representatives for Count III of the Third Amended
Complaint. David A. Borkovic and Jones, Gregg, Creehan &
Gerace, LLP are appointed as class counsel.
2. The Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of John
McArthur is granted in part and denied in part.
-- It is granted in that the Court has disregarded any legal
opinions. However, it is denied in that the Court has
considered opinions about the oil and gas industry and the
practices.
-- The Defendant can reassert its motion, if necessary, at
trial.
3. The Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Barry
Pulliam is denied.
4. The Defendant's Motions to Strike Portions of the Expert
Declarations of Stephen L. Becker, Angela L. Paslay, and Kris
L.
Terry are denied.
5. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Confidential Designation is
granted.
XTO Energy is an American energy company and subsidiary of
ExxonMobil.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46y2P1E at no extra charge.[CC]
*********
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 ***