/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230803.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, August 3, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 155
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Bedford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Bernier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Bonello Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Bounds Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Branson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Opposition
40-66 ITHACA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Polo Suit Says
ADVENTHEALTH FOUNDATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Osayande Says
ALIERA COMPANIES: Settlement in Duncan Suit Gets Prelim Approval
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 31
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Revision of Shareholder Suit Settlement Filed
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Approval in Stockholder Suit Denied
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Stock Conversion Class Suit Settlement Denied
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Oliver Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd
AMERICU CREDIT: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Dec. 14, 2024
BASS PRO: Amendment to Scheduling, Trial Order Sought
BIG PICTURE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Galloway Class Cert Bid
BOYNE USA: Anderson Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
BP EXPLORATION: Johnson Claims in B3 Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
BROOKDALE SENIOR: August 14 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
BRYAN COLLIER: Hardin Loses Bid to Certify Class
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: TransCanada Found Liable for Aiding Breaches
DAVID ESQUIVEL: Jones, et al., Seek to Certify Cass Action
DBI SERVICES: Jankowski Wins Bid to Certify Former Employee Class
DNC PARKS: Vegas Seeks Time Extension to File Class Cert Reply
FACEBOOK INC: Final Settlement Approval Sought in User Privacy Suit
FINDLAY'S TALL: Court Narrows Claims in Freeland Suit
FIRST STUDENT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Navarro Claims
FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Certification of Several Claims Sought
FPT OPERATING: Dismissal Bid in Scherrer TCPA Class Suit Denied
FRANK KENDALL: Holfer Seeks to Certify National Guard Veteran Class
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Hamad Class Suit Over Inflated Fees
GEMINI SOLAR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 18
GENERAL MOTORS: Counts Class Suit Over Chevrolet Cruze Dismissed
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Counts Class Suit with Prejudice
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing of Class Cert Reply Due August 4
GIVAUDAN SA: Crimson Sues Over Candles, Soap Pricing Collusion
GOD'S KINGDOM: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Watts
GOOGLE LLC: Must Comply with Common Law Obligations, Suit Says
GREATBANC TRUST: Court Oks Bid to Amend Sched Order in Szalanski
GREENIX PEST: Hutt Bid for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs Nixed
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 5
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Roque Sues Over Labor Code Violations
KEVIN CARR: Antrim Seeks to Certify Class
KEVIN O'DONOVAN: Wins Class Suit Over Tenants' Anti-Social Behavior
KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Extension to File Bid for Settlement OK Sought
LABOR SOURCE: Speight Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd
LITTLE SCHOLARS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Villa Suit Says
META PLATFORMS: July 25, 2024 Filing for Class Cert Sought
NEIL BROZEN: Arbitration Procedure's Waiver Unenforceable, Ct. Says
PARAMED INC: Settles Class Suit Over Health Standards for $195,000
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Dismissal Bid of Salazar Class Suit Granted
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Nolen Class Complaint
PNC BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Release of Security Interests
PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARY: Court Stays Class Certification Briefing
RITE AID: August 14 Date Deadline to File Class Status Bid Remains
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Fact Discovery Date Extended to Sept. 15
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Over Huawei Transactions
TAKEDA PHARMA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 22, 2024
TEXAS HEALTH: Court Extends Time to File Response to Notice Bid
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Carrington Until August 8
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Domino Until August 8
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Eslinger Until August 8
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Johnson Until August 8
TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Schmidhauser Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing
TWITTER INC: Faces Woodfield $500M Class Suit Over Severance Pay
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Moves to Dismiss Property Owners Class Suit
VICTORIA: Justification Continues in Public Housing Suit Amid Deal
WALMART INC: Ct. OK's 60-Day Settlements Talks in Arrison
WALT DISNEY: Nielsen Allowed Leave to File Docs Under Seal
WAYFINDER FAMILY: Faces Ratliff Suit Over Breach Under Labor Code
WINDOWS WE ARE: Fails to Timely Pay Proper Wages, Seminara Alleges
XEROX CORP: Bid to Amend Pleadings in Cole Suit Due June 7, 2024
*********
3M COMPANY: Bedford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bedford, 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-03438-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 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
esophageal 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: Bernier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore O'Neil Bernier, 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-03460-RMG (D.S.C., July 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 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: Bonello Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Bonello, 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-03462-RMG (D.S.C., July 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 Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with Hashimoto's
disease, and 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: Bounds Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Bounds, 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-03463-RMG (D.S.C., July 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 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: Branson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Branson, 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-03439-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 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 thyroid 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: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Opposition
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARROD JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00008-AT (N.D.
Ga.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them
leave to file a Supplemental Joint Opposition to the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification in light of recent developments
related to the settlements reached in the City of Rome state-court
litigation.
The Court has previously directed the parties in this case to keep
it apprised of important developments in the parallel state court
litigation brought by the City of Rome against most of the entities
that are defendants here regarding the same alleged PFAS
contamination at issue here.
Pursuant to that direction, certain recent developments warrant a
supplemental submission regarding the pending class certification
motion. In the wake of settlements with all defendants in the City
of Rome litigation, the Rome City Commission has recently rolled
back all PFAS-related water charges, effective September 1, 2023,
and committed to not reinstitute any such charges in the future.
In addition, its lawyer has indicated that the funds obtained
through settlements in the City of Rome litigation will be enough
to pay for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a
reverse-osmosis water treatment system that will remove all
detectible PFAS from Rome's municipal water.
3M operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare,
and consumer goods.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 12, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KeoItk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert B. Remar, Esq.
Monica P. Witte, Esq.
SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
1105 W. Peachtree St., N.E., Ste. 1000
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 815-3500
E-mail: rremar@sgrlaw.com
mwitte@sgrlaw.com
- and -
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Harlan Irby Prater, IV, Esq.
M. Christian King, Esq.
Benjamin P. Harmon, Esq.
John M. Johnson, Esq.
Adam K. Peck, Esq.
Lana A. Olson, Esq.
Brian P. Kappel, Esq.
Suzanne A. Fleming, Esq.
Amaobi J. Enyinnia, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE, LLC
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
E-mail: lradney@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
cking@lightfootlaw.com
bharmon@lightfootlaw.com
jjohnson@lightfootlaw.com
apeck@lightfootlaw.com
lolson@lightfootlaw.com
sfleming@lightfootlaw.com
bkappel@lightfootlaw.com
aenyinnia@lightfootlaw.com
- and -
Blair J. Cash, Esq.
Donovan K. Eason, Esq.
MOSELEY MARCINAK LAW GROUP LLP
Kennesaw, GA 30156
Telephone: (470) 480-7258
E-mail: blair.cash@momarlaw.com
donavan.eason@momarlaw.com
- and -
Doug Scribner, Esq.
David Carpenter, Esq.
Jay Repko, Esq.
Fiona O'Carroll, Esq.
Meaghan G. Boyd, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 W. Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
E-mail: doug.scribner@alston.com
david.carpenter@alston.com
jay.repko@alston.com
fiona.ocarroll@alston.com
Meaghan.boyd@alston.com
- and -
Christopher Jones, Esq.
Christopher M. Ward, Esq.
CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP
1200 Huntington Center,
41 S. High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 621-1500
Facsimile: (614) 621-0010
E-mail: Cjones@calfee.com
cward@calfee.com
- and -
Elizabeth B. Davis, Esq.
Tala Amirfazli, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
171 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Suite 1100
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 815-3000
Facsimile: (404) 817-3244
E-mail: bdavis@burr.com
tamirfazli@burr.com
- and -
David C. Higney, Esq.
H. Wayne Grant, Esq.
GRANT KONVALINKA & HARRISON, P.C.
633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Chattanooga, TN 37450-0900
Telephone: (423) 756-8400
Facsimile: (423) 756-6518
E-mail: dhigney@gkhpc.com
- and -
Martin Shelton, Esq.
R. Scott Masterson, Esq.
Keith M. Kodosky, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4700
Atlanta, GA 30308
E-mail: Scott.masterson@lewisbrisbois.com
Keith.kodosky@lewisbrisbois.com
Martin.shelton@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
David E. Nahmias, Esq.
Simon P. Hansen, Esq.
Jeffrey Kaplan, Jr., Esq.
Theodore M. Grossman, Esq.
Steven N. Geise, Esq.
Louis A. Chaiten, Esq.
James R. Saywell, Esq.
Kevin P. Holewinski, Esq.
JONES DAY
1221 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (404) 521-3939
E-mail: dnahmias@jonesday.com
shansen@jonesday.com
jkaplan@jonesday.com
tgrossman@jonesday.com
sngeise@jonesday.com
lachaiten@jonesday.com
jsaywell@jonesday.com
kpholewinski@jonesday.com
- and -
James L. Hollis, Esq.
Andrea Lostocco Swartzberg, Esq.
Allen McLean Estes, Esq.
Christopher L. Yeilding, Esq.
Elizabeth Jones Flachsbart, Esq.
BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
30 Ivan Allen Jr., Blvd NW Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 261-6020
E-mail: jhollis@balch.com
aswartzberg@balch.com
aestes@balch.com
cyeilding@balch.com
eflachsbart@balch.com
- and -
William V. Custer, Esq.
Jennifer B. Dempsey, Esq.
Christian J. Bromley, Esq.
Justin E. Jorgensen, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
One Atlantic Center - Fourteenth Floor
1201 W. Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-6600
Facsimile: (404) 572-6999
E-mail: bill.custer@bclplaw.com
jennifer.dempsey@bryancave.com
christian.bromley@bclplaw.com
justin.jorgensen@bclplaw.com
- and -
David J. Marmins, Esq.
Edward A Marshall, Esq.
Morgan E. M. Harrison, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
171 17th Street. N.W., Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 873-8126
Facsimile: (404) 873-8127
- and -
Elizabeth J. Marquardt, Esq.
W. Randall Wilson, Esq.
MILLER & MARTIN PLLC
1180 West Peachtree Street, NW
Regions Plaza, Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 962-6100
Facsimile: (404) 962-6300
E-mail: elizabeth.marquardt@millermartin.com
randy.wilson@millermartin.com
- and -
Alexandra B. Cunningham, Esq.
Merideth Snow Daly, Esq.
Michael J. Bisceglia, Esq.
Brooke F. Voelzke, Esq.
Daniel R. Stefany, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
951 E. Byrd Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 788-8200
E-mail: acunningham@huntonAK.com
mdaly@huntonAK.com
mbisceglia@huntonAK.com
bvoelzke@huntonAK.com
dstefany@huntonAK.com
40-66 ITHACA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Polo Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Polo and Ines Polo, Plaintiffs v. 40-66 Ithaca St. Owners
Corp., Pinnacle Group NY LLC, Joel Wiener, and Tal Sharon,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05128 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2023) is a
class action seeking recovery against the Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Articles 6 and 19 of the New York
State Labor Law, and their supporting New York State Department of
Labor regulations.
The Plaintiffs were employed as non-managerial employees at
Defendants' residential property located in Elmhurst, New York from
on or around 1990 through and including the present date. From on
or around 1990 through and including the present date, the
Plaintiffs typically worked for more than 40 hours during each of
the weeks. However, they never received an overtime premium of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for those hours. Thus,
Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours, liquidated
and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and the
NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The 40-66 Ithaca St. Owners Corp. is a domestic corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
ADVENTHEALTH FOUNDATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Osayande Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Valentina Osayande, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AdventHealth Foundation, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-04362 (N.D. Ill., July 6, 2023) arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 for the Defendant's failure
to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned
overtime wages.
Plaintiff Osayande was employed by the Defendant as a registered
nurse from approximately May, 2022 through approximately May, 2023.
She routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.
However, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, the Collective
Members and the Class Members one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all time they spent working in excess of 40 hours
in a given workweek. In addition, the Defendant also implemented a
policy wherein it automatically deducts a thirty-minute meal break
for each and every shift worked by its employees, says the
Plaintiff.
Advent employs more than 83,000 skilled and compassionate
caregivers in physician practices, hospitals, outpatient clinics,
skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies and hospice
centers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza, Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
ALIERA COMPANIES: Settlement in Duncan Suit Gets Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORYLN DUNCAN and BRUCE
DUNCAN, v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00867-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley
entered an amended order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of Settlement.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OqcWOZ at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSO v. THE COUNTY OF
ALLEGHENY, Case No. 2:18-cv-00097 (W.D. Pa, Filed Jan. 22, 2018),
the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Fact discovery is extended to: Sept. 30, 2023
-- Any motions for class certification Oct. 31, 2023
are due on or before:
-- Any experts that will be utilized for October 15,
2023
class certification motions are to
be disclosed in full pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26 on or before:
-- Any response to a motion for class Nov. 30, 2023
certification is due on or before:
-- Any disclosures of experts to be Nov. 15, 2023
utilized for the response are due on
or before:
-- Any reply to the response to a Dec. 20, 2023
motion for class certification is
due on or before:
Allegheny is a county consisting of a hilly region on the Allegheny
Plateau bounded to the southeast by the Monongahela and
Youghiogheny rivers and to the northeast by the Allegheny River.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Revision of Shareholder Suit Settlement Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley and Michael Leonard of Yahoo! Finance report that AMC
Entertainment Holdings Inc. shares rose as much as 42% on July 24,
2023 after a surprise court ruling on July 21, 2023 scuttled a
stock conversion plan the cinema chain has now revised.
The company and investors leading a lawsuit over the plan filed a
revision of a nine-figure settlement over the weekend in Delaware
Chancery Court to address problems identified by Judge Morgan Zurn.
The ruling, in which Zurn found that the original deal waived too
many potential claims against the company, stunned some investors
and analysts, who had expected her to sign off on the proposed
class action settlement.
Zurn turned the deal down over sections that would have waived any
claims by holders of the common stock, including those also holding
AMC preferred equity units, or APEs. State corporate law requires
such releases to work on a share-by-share basis, rather than an
investor-by-investor basis, she said.
The settlement's value, which is more than $100 million, has
fluctuated with the company's stock price, which was up 36% at $6
at 1:56 p.m. in New York.
What Changed
The shares are on a wild ride because some traders and hedge funds,
as part of an arbitrage bet, have been adding to their APE
positions and going short AMC shares. They've been betting they
will be able to pocket the spread once the conversion goes through
and narrows the price gap between the two. July 21, 2023's ruling
against the conversion proposal forced them to start unwinding that
bet to limit their risk, boosting the shares.
In the revised proposal, which appeared on the court's public
docket on July 24, 2023, AMC and the plaintiffs sought to address
the judge's points. The new version of the agreement includes a
narrower release, waiving only claims "that relate to the ownership
of common stock."
In a letter on July 22, 2023 lawyers for the plaintiffs asked Zurn
to approve the revised agreement without seeking additional comment
from AMC shareholders. They said both sides had agreed to revised
terms "identical in all other respects to the settlement previously
submitted for approval, as to which notice has been provided to all
potential class members," and that the only change was to make the
terms better for class members through the narrowed release.
More than 2,800 investors in the "meme stock" had written to Zurn
opposing the deal, arguing it would dilute their shares, among
other concerns. She had flagged similar objections at a settlement
hearing in late June, when an attorney for AMC said the company
hoped the agreement would bring it "global peace" amid the APE
furor. One investor who objected to the deal mocked the broad
waiver at the time as "intergalactic."
Risk of 'Collapse'
AMC Chief Executive Officer Adam Aron announced the revised
settlement in an open letter to investors on July 23, 2023,
emphasizing the "critical" importance of getting the deal approved
and the APEs converted so the company can raise new equity
capital.
"The risk of financial collapse is not whimsical," Aron wrote in
the letter, posted on Twitter. "That is especially the case now
with the added uncertainty caused by the writers and actors
strikes."
July 21, 2023's ruling raised another hurdle to AMC's
recapitalization efforts, prompted by a dive in the movie business
tied to the Covid-19 pandemic. Investors had sought an expedited
conversion, which offered a one-for-one exchange of its APE shares
into its Class A common stock.
Objectors accused the theater chain of engineering an unsavory
scheme to sideline its base of passionate retail investors, many of
them participants in the market rally that saved AMC from a
pandemic-era bankruptcy. The settlement allows the APE conversion
while handing out extra stock to mitigate the dilution of ordinary
shareholders.
"We believe the significant monetary benefit achieved through our
clients' litigation efforts clearly warrants compromising the
common shareholders' claims," Mark Lebovitch, a lawyer for
investors backing the settlement, said in an email on July 23,
2023. "Narrowing the release only strengthens that reality."
The APEs
AMC issued the APEs last year, including a 30% block to hedge fund
Antara Capital LP, and has been trying to convert them ever since.
The APEs are supposed to be equivalent in value to the common
shares but have traded at a steep discount to the stock due to
uncertainty about the conversion.
More than 70% of the common shareholders who voted on the original
APE conversion plan in March, before the settlement deal was
reached, backed the move. The APE holders also supported the
proposal, by a 9-to-1 margin. But thousands of other retail
investors opposed the conversion over the share dilution.
Zurn stressed July 21, 2023 that her ruling didn't address claims
of market manipulation — which included allegations about
"synthetic shares, Wall Street corruption, dark pool trading,
insider trading, and RICO violations" — raised by some retail
objectors.
The case is AMC Entertainment Holdings Shareholder Litigation,
2023-2015, Delaware Chancery Court (Wilmington). [GN]
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Approval in Stockholder Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morgan T. Zurn of the Court of Chancery of Delaware denies
approval of the proposed settlement in the case, IN RE AMC
ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, Consol. C.A.
No. 2023-0215-MTZ (Del. Ch.).
Common stockholders of AMC Entertainment Holdings ("AMC") brought
direct claims on behalf of a putative class of common stockholders.
AMC is a movie theater company; the COVID-19 pandemic was
disastrous for its revenue. To stay afloat, between the end of 2020
and the middle of 2021, AMC sold nearly all of its available common
shares in a remarkable connection with retail investors, i.e.,
individuals rather than institutions. By April 2021, approximately
85% of AMC's stockholders were retail investors. As of March 2021,
AMC had issued and outstanding 450,156,186 common shares out of a
total of 524,173,073 authorized in its certificate of
incorporation.
To continue to capitalize on the retail demand for AMC common
stock, AMC's Board sought to increase the number of authorized
common shares. On Jan. 27, 2021, the Board adopted a resolution
proposing to amend AMC's Certificate to increase the total number
of authorized common shares by 500 million shares to 1,024,173,073
shares, and resolved to submit that proposed amendment to a
stockholder vote at the Company's May 4, 2021, annual meeting. The
Board also amended the Company's bylaws to lower the quorum
requirement from a majority to one-third of the issued and
outstanding stock entitled to vote at the meeting.
The Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to stop the Company from
holding a special meeting at which the common stockholders,
together with holders of fractional units of blank check preferred
stock, would vote upon two charter amendments. The first amendment
would authorize more common stock, which would trigger the
conversion of those fractional units into shares of common stock.
The second would effect a reverse stock split.
In addition to common stock, AMC's Certificate authorized 50
million shares of preferred stock. None had been issued. AMC and
its advisors decided that selling preferred stock could raise
capital and that the votes associated with the preferred stock
could carry the Certificate amendment. On July 28, 2022, after
months of discussions, the Board approved the creation of AMC
Preferred Equity Units ("APE units"). Each APE is a depositary
receipt representing an interest in 1/100th of a share of the
Company's Series A Convertible Participating Preferred Stock. Each
share of preferred stock automatically converts into 100 shares of
common stock as soon as AMC has enough authorized common shares to
effectuate the conversion. That makes each APE automatically
convertible into one share of common stock.
On September 26, AMC disclosed it had entered into an equity
distribution agreement with Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. to sell
425 million APEs from time to time in at-the-market offerings. This
campaign was unsuccessful: by December, APEs were trading below one
dollar per unit, forcing AMC to stop selling additional APEs on the
open market.
The amendments were certain to pass because the AMC board of
directors had used its blank check authority to issue units
representing fractional shares of preferred stock, and imbued those
units with dispositive voting power. Those units have a mirrored
voting feature under which any uninstructed units vote in
proportion to the instructed units. The mirrored voting feature
enables the preferred units to dictate the outcome of any vote on
which the common shares and the preferred units vote together.
During the leadup to the special meeting, the Board sold a large
block of preferred units to an institutional investor who promised
to vote in favor of the amendments. That promise, together with the
mirrored voting feature, ensured the amendments' approval by a
combined vote of the preferred units and common shares.
The Plaintiffs asserted two claims on behalf of the common
stockholders. First, they contended members of the Board breached
their fiduciary duties by issuing and "weaponizing" the preferred
units, thereby interfering with the common stockholders' voting
rights. Second, they contended AMC was statutorily required to
provide the common stockholders with a class vote on the creation
of the preferred units and failed to do so.
The Plaintiffs sought an expedited hearing on a preliminary
injunction that would prevent the special meeting from taking place
until after the Court entered judgment on their claims. Before the
preliminary injunction hearing, the Plaintiffs negotiated a
settlement with the Defendants on behalf of the class of common
stockholders they purport to represent. The settlement
consideration consists of additional shares of common stock awarded
to current common stockholders. In return, the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants suggest the class of common stockholders should release
claims they hold as common stockholders as well as any claims they
may hold as owners of preferred units.
Under its terms, AMC agreed to distribute 6,922,565 shares of
common stock to existing common stockholders, at a ratio of one
share of common for every seven and a half shares of common stock
held, after the Reverse Split but before the Conversion.83 Any
fractional shares would be sold and the cash proceeds distributed
pro rata.
Approximately 2,850 purported stockholders submitted more than
3,500 communications, many of which were styled as objections, that
were emailed or postmarked between May 1 and May 31, 2023. Two
objecting stockholders retained counsel: Rose Izzo and Anthony
Kramer, who joined in Izzo's objection.
The parties filed briefs in support of the Proposed Settlement and
responded to the objections. On June 21, the Special Master filed
her report and recommendations. The Plaintiffs and 13 putative
stockholders timely filed exceptions to the Special Master's Report
by the June 28 deadline. Judge Zurn held the Settlement Hearing on
June 29 and 30.
During the leadup to the Proposed Settlement, the conflicting
interests between the common stockholders and APE unitholders were
on display. First, objector Izzo, who owns more APEs than common
shares, intimated she seeks to become lead plaintiff. In opposing
this move, the Plaintiffs acknowledged the adversity between the
common stockholders and the APE unitholders by asserting that Izzo
is not "qualified to speak for the Class" because she owns more APE
than common, "and thus would benefit financially if the Settlement
were rejected and the Conversion happened someday on worse terms to
the Class," giving rise to "a facial conflict of interest." Second,
a putative intervenor who held APE units, but not any common stock,
sought to intervene to protect the value of his APEs from the
Proposed Settlement.
Under Delaware law, the Court must review all class action
settlements to ensure that (1) the representative plaintiffs
negotiated a deal for the class that falls within a range of
reasonable results that a disinterested person could accept, and
(2) the representative plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of due
process such that the settlement can bind absent class members to
the deal the representative plaintiffs negotiated. The presentation
of a settlement involves a series of prescribed steps designed to
permit briefing by the parties in support of the settlement, and to
provide notice to stockholders so they can object.
In an effort to accommodate the parties' repeated requests for
expedited resolution, Judge Zurn's analysis begins and ends with
the Proposed Settlement's reasonableness. He concludes the Proposed
Settlement cannot be approved because the release encompasses APE
claims that the Plaintiffs, who only sued on behalf of a putative
class of common stockholders and only brought common claims, cannot
release. The claims arising out of APE units are based on a
different factual predicate, adhered to a different security, and
not supported by consideration.
Judge Zurn explains that AMC's stockholder base is extraordinary.
It includes a great number of human owners who care passionately
about their stock ownership and the Company. Many of them are
connected to each other online. When notice went out to AMC
stockholders, the reaction was unprecedented. The Court received
more than 3,500 communications from approximately 2,850 purported
stockholders.
To ensure that the stockholder submissions received careful review,
the Court appointed a special master to review them and make
recommendations. After completing her review, the special master
filed a report recommending how the Court should weigh the
objections against the terms of proposed settlement. The objecting
stockholders and parties received the opportunity to take exception
to that report. Then the Court held a hearing where the parties and
objectors presented their positions on the proposed settlement.
At this juncture, the Court's only task is to approve or reject the
proposed settlement. The focus of the settlement is on the claims
presented in the case. It cannot address issues that do not pertain
to the fairness of the settlement. Such issues raised by AMC
stockholders include theories about synthetic shares, Wall Street
corruption, dark pool trading, insider trading, and RICO
violations, and a request for a share count. The Court's role is
limited to considering settlement-specific issues, like the
strength of the plaintiffs' claims, the consideration the class
would receive, and the scope of the release the class would give in
exchange for that consideration.
Citing AMC's financial situation, the parties have sought to
present their settlement for approval on a compressed timeframe.
Even moving quickly, the Court must ensure that the proposed
settlement is fair and fulfills the principles of due process. To
cut to the chase, the settlement cannot be approved as submitted.
Judge Zurn holds that the release purports to release not only
claims associated with the common stock, but also claims associated
with preferred interests that common stockholders might also hold.
The release cannot properly extend to those latter claims, because
the Plaintiffs were not appointed as fiduciaries for the holders of
preferred interests and did not bring claims based on preferred
rights. The Plaintiffs only sued on behalf of a putative class of
common stockholders, and only asserted claims based on the voting
rights of common stockholders. They can agree to a release that
encompasses the claims they asserted, and claims that the class
holds and that arise out of the same factual predicate.
The settlement purports to release claims that do not arise out of
the same factual predicate as the claims asserted in the action.
The factual predicate on which the Plaintiffs' claims are based
depicts the plight of the common stockholders who have been harmed
by the issuance and voting power of the preferred units. The
factual predicate from the standpoint of the preferred units is the
polar opposite. True, the Plaintiffs allege a unitary timeline of
events that starts from AMC's creation of preferred units and ends
with the proposals at the special meeting. But, Judge Zurn says
those events affected common stockholders and the preferred units
in opposite ways, particularly as to their voting rights and equity
in AMC.
More fundamentally, the direct claims arising out of preferred
interests are appurtenant to those interests and can be represented
and released only by preferred unitholders. The Plaintiffs, as
common stockholders representing common stockholder class members,
cannot release direct claims appurtenant to the preferred units.
This is so even if some common stockholder class members happen to
also hold preferred units.
Finally, Judge Zurn finds that the release of claims arising out of
preferred interests is not supported by consideration. He says
awarding more shares to common stockholders necessarily comes at
the expense of preferred units; the settlement consideration harms
preferred unitholders.
The settlement therefore cannot be approved as presented. This
decision nevertheless takes the additional step of ruling on the
various exceptions to the special master's report. They are
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Zurn does not approve the Proposed
Settlement. The parties should confer on and submit a schedule for
the remainder of the case, and the Plaintiffs should file a
consolidated complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4kyranxb from Leagle.com.
Gregory V. Varallo -- Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com -- Daniel E. Meyer
-- Daniel.Meyer@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Mark Lebovitch -- markl@blbglaw.com --
Edward Timlin -- edward.timlin@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP, New York, New York; Michael J. Barry --
mbarry@gelaw.com -- Kelly L. Tucker -- ktucker@gelaw.com -- Jason
M. Avellino, GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Thomas
Curry -- tcurry@saxenawhite.com -- SAXENA WHITE P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Allegheny County Employees'
Retirement System and Anthony Franchi.
Raymond J. DiCamillo -- dicamillo@rlf.com -- Kevin M. Gallagher --
gallagher@rlf.com -- Matthew W. Murphy -- murphy@rlf.com --
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; John A.
Neuwirth -- john.neuwirth@weil.com -- Joshua S. Amsel --
joshua.amsel@weil.com -- Tanner S. Stanley --
tanner.stanley@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, New York,
New York, Attorneys for Defendants AMC Entertainment Holdings,
Inc., Adam M. Aron, Denise Clark, Howard W. Koch, Jr., Kathleen M.
Pawlus, Keri Putnam, Anthony J. Saich, Philip Lader, Gary F. Locke,
Lee Wittlinger, and Adam J. Sussman.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Stock Conversion Class Suit Settlement Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Godoy of Reuters reports that a judge on July 21, 2023 blocked
a proposed settlement on AMC Entertainment Holdings' (AMC.N) stock
conversion plan that would allow the company to issue more shares,
sending its common shares soaring and preferred shares down in
after-hours trading.
Delaware Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn said in the ruling that she
cannot approve the deal, which would provide AMC common stock
holders with shares worth an estimated $129 million, because it
would also settle potential claims by preferred shareholders who
were not represented in the lawsuit.
AMC shares were up 69% at $7.44 in trading after the bell. Its
preferred shares were down 20% at $1.43.
An attorney for the investors who filed the class action lawsuit
and a spokesperson for AMC did not immediately reply to requests
for comment on July 21, 2023.
The company was sued in February for allegedly rigging a
shareholder vote that would allow AMC to convert preferred stock to
common stock and issue hundreds of millions of new shares.
The investors who sued alleged AMC had enacted the plan to
circumvent the will of common stock holders who opposed the company
diluting their holdings.
Without the proposed settlement, common stockholders and preferred
shareholders would end up owning 34.28% and 65.72% of AMC,
respectively. Under the proposed settlement, common stockholders
and preferred shareholders would own 37.15% and 62.85%,
respectively.
While the deal would compensate common stock holders for the
dilution, they had no right to settle potential claims by holders
of preferred stock, Zurn wrote on July 21, 2023.
The settlement received more than 2,800 objections from
shareholders, a level of interest Zurn called "unprecedented."
"AMC's stockholder base is extraordinary," she said, adding many
"care passionately about their stock ownership and the company."
Many objectors sought permission to opt out of the settlement and
sue on their own behalf, dismissing AMC's dire financial
predictions as "fear tactics."
They did not raise the problem Zurn identified with releasing
preferred shareholder claims.
AMC has told investors it is burning cash at an unsustainable rate
and warned that an inability to raise capital could force the
company into bankruptcy. Selling more shares would enable it to pay
down some of its $5.1 billion in debt.
It cannot carry out its plan to do so until the litigation has been
resolved.
Zurn's decision sends the dispute back to the parties, who may
decide to amend the proposed settlement and try again for
approval.
The case is In re: AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, No. 2023-0215, in the Delaware Court of Chancery. [GN]
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Oliver Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY OLIVER, TERRY
GAYLE QUINTON, SHAWN O'KEEFE, ANDREW AMEND, SUSAN BURDETTE, GIANNA
VALDES, DAVID MOSKOWITZ, ZACHARY DRAPER, NATE THAYER, MICHAEL
THOMAS REID, ALLIE STEWART, ANGELA CLARK, JOSEPH REALDINE, RICKY
AMARO, ABIGAIL BAKER, JAMES ROBBINS IV, EMILY COUNTS, DEBBIE
TINGLE, NANCI-TAYLOR MADDUX, SHERIE MCCAFFREY, MARILYN BAKER, WYATT
COOPER, ELLEN MAHER, SARAH GRANT, and GARY ACCORD, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS
COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00566-NGG-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sanket J.
Bulsara entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
motion to amend:
-- The Court therefore finds that under both Rules 15 and 16 it
is
appropriate to deny leave to amend to add the proposed new
class
representatives.
-- The proposed Second Amended Complaint also seeks to revise the
class definition to conform to the narrower definition
disclosed
in the Plaintiffs’ February 15 letter.
-- Because the February 15 definition has been the operative
definition through the completion of fact discovery, there is
no
apparent prejudice to Amex—and indeed they do not object.
This is a putative class action brought against the American
Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services
Company Inc. on
behalf of consumers who made Visa, Mastercard, and Discover credit
card and/or debit card transactions to purchase goods and services
sold by certain merchants at prices inflated by Amex's
"Non-Discrimination Provisions."
The Plaintiffs filed this action on January 29, 2019, alleging
violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, various state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment.
On April 30, 2020, The Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis dismissed the
Plaintiffs' federal and unjust enrichment claims in their entirety,
and dismissed their antitrust and/or consumer protection claims
under the laws of five states.
The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that day, adding 15
party-plaintiffs as class representatives. The Amended Complaint
contains the same class definition as the original Complaint:
"All persons or entities residing in [State] who do not have an
Amex credit card or an Amex co-branded credit card and did not
have
one during the period of time permitted by the applicable
statute
of limitations (Class Period), who used any electronic form of
payment to purchase a product or service from a merchant that
accepted Amex, Visa, Mastercard, and/or Discover credit or
charge
cards during the Class Period."
American Express is an American multinational financial services
corporation that specializes in payment cards.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/471weS3 at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICU CREDIT: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Dec. 14, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fairchild-Cathey, et al.,
v. Americu Credit Union, Case No. 6:21-cv-01173 (N.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 27, 2021), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order
granting stipulation insofar as and to the extent that:
(1) On or before Aug. 22, 2023, the parties shall file next
status
reports regarding the progress of discovery and the
litigation.
(2) The deadline for completion of Mandatory Mediation remains
Dec. 1, 2023.
(3) The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosures and Reports are due
Oct. 12, 2023.
(4) The Defendants Expert Disclosure and Report are due
Nov. 26, 2023.
(5) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures are due Dec. 12, 2023.
(6) All Discovery, including all depositions, shall be completed
by
Jan. 10, 2024.
(7) Class Certification Motion shall be filed by Dec. 14, 2024
(8) Dispositive Motions shall be filed by March 1, 2024.
The nature of suit states Banks and Banking -- Breach of Contract.
AmeriCU Credit Union is a New York State Chartered credit union
headquartered in Rome, New York, originally founded in 1950 as
Griffiss Employees Credit Union.[CC]
BASS PRO: Amendment to Scheduling, Trial Order Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENT SLAUGHTER, LARRY
WATTS, CHRISTOPHER QUINN, KEVIN KEARBY, JAMES CAIN, and FREDRICK
HECKS on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BASS PRO, INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC; BASS PRO OUTDOOR
WORLD, LLC; BASS PRO GROUP, LLC; GREAT AMERICAN OUTDOORS GROUP,
LLC; GREAT OUTDOORS GROUP, LLC; AMERICAN SPORTSMAN HOLDINGS CO.;
and JOHN DOES 1-100, Case No. 6:22-cv-03174-RK (W.D. Mo.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the Court's
scheduling and trial order as follows:
Discovery Plan and Scheduling Deadlines
Joinder of Parties Jan. 16, 2024
Amendment of Pleadings Jan. 16, 2024
The Plaintiff Expert Designation Dec. 15, 2023
The Defendant Expert Designation Jan. 16, 2024
Rebuttal Expert Designation Jan. 30, 2024
Discovery Dispute Motions Jan. 30, 2024
Completion of Discovery Feb. 13, 2024
(both fact and expert discovery)
Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file March 14, 2024
Motion for Class Certification
Dispositive Motions March 14, 2024
Bass Pro provides fishing and boating equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OtLGiU at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gerald Singleton, Esq.
Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq.
Andrew D. Bluth, Esq.
Trent J. Nelson, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
1414 K Street, Suite 470
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 248-8478
E-mail: gsingleton@singletonschreiber.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bryan O. Wade, Esq.
E. Ryan Olson, Esq.
Danielle J. Reid, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
901 St. Louis Street, Suite 1800
Springfield, MO 65806
Office: (417) 268-4000
Facsimile: (417) 268-4040
E-mail: Bryan.wade@huschblackwell.com
Ryan.olson@huschblackwell.com
Danielle.reid@huschblackwell.com
BIG PICTURE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Galloway Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE GALLOWAY, et al., v.
BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00406-REP (E.D.
Va.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order modifying the
deadlines set forth in the Order dated May 5, 2023 to permit them
until July 31, 2023 to file his opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, to permit the Plaintiffs until
August 17, 2023 to file any reply thereto, and to reset the hearing
on the Class Certification Motion.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47eDpXx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
John David Taliaferro, Esq.
Bernard R. Given, Esq.
LOEB & LOEB LLP
901 New York Ave., NW, Suite 300-E
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 618-5015
Facsimile: (202) 318-0691
E-mail: jtaliaferro@loeb.com
bgiven@loeb.com
BOYNE USA: Anderson Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as
trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST; ROBERT AND NORA ERHART; and TJARDA CLAGETT,
v. BOYNE USA, INC.; BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC.; and SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris
entered an order that Boyne's motion for class certification is
granted, in part, denied, in part, and reserved upon, in part.
-- The Plaintiffs may admit evidence of Boyne's server failure.
-- The Plaintiffs may not admit evidence that Boyne's server
failure
represents an example of destruction or spoliation of evidence
or
evinces an intent to do so.
-- The Court will reserve ruling on the applicability of ARM
section
24.210.805(17) and/or ARM section 24.210.601(1) to Boyne's
record-keeping obligations under Montana administrative law.
-- The Court will reserve ruling on the admissibility of evidence
or
argument by the Plaintiffs that Boyne's Megasys server failure
violates Montana administrative law.
-- The parties shall submit to the Court supplemental briefing,
on
or before July 25, 2023, at 5:00 P.M., not to exceed 15 pages
in
length, regarding the following issues:
(1) The interpretation of and relationship between the
recordkeeping requirements imposed by Montana
administrative
law pursuant to ARM section 24.210.805(17) and ARM section
24.210.601(1); and
(2) The applicability of the provisions to Boyne's
record-keeping
obligations under Montana administrative law.
-- The parties shall comply with all discovery and disclosure
rules
as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Local
Rules.
The Court agrees with Boyne that allowing the Plaintiffs to admit
evidence characterizing the failed server as rising to the level of
bad-faith spoliation risks unduly prejudicing Boyne.
The Defendants Boyne USA, Inc., Boyne Properties, Inc., and Summit
Hotel, LLC move for an in limine order from the Court excluding
evidence regarding a failed server. The Plaintiffs oppose the
motion.
The Court assumes familiarity with the factual background provided
in its previous orders. Anderson owns a unit in the Shoshone.
Erharts own units in the Summit. Claggett owns a unit in the
Village Center.
Boyne marketed the Condos as investments to prospective purchasers
and
made representations regarding the economic benefits of ownership.
Boyne owns and operates Big Sky Resort, as well as three
condominium-hotels at the base of Big Sky known as the Summit,
Shoshone, and Village Center.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K9F0DQ at no extra charge.[CC]
BP EXPLORATION: Johnson Claims in B3 Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON JOHNSON v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION "R" (5), Civil Action No. 17-4368 (E.D. La.), Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana:
a. grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America
Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s ("BP parties") motion to
exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation
expert, Dr. Jerald Cook;
b. grants their motion for summary judgment;
c. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of
Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged
spoliation.
The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and
dispersants from his work as an onshore cleanup worker. He
represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health
problems: rash, skin irritation, itching, difficulty breathing, and
cough.
The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case
was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs
who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater
Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The
Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After his case was severed,
it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for
general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross
negligence against the defendants as a result of the oil spill and
its cleanup.
To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and
dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his
complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and
environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert
offering an opinion on general causation. In his report dated March
14, 2022, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to
determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of
exposures sustained in performing oil spill cleanup work.
The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be
excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful.
The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if
Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is
unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both
motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record
quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to
spoliation, and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a
sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion.
Regarding the motion to exclude, Judge Vance says that issue is
whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation
evidence. She examines Dr. Cook's general causation report and
finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to
a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the
Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful,
and incapable of establishing general causation. Given Dr. Cook's
failure to determine the relevant harmful level of exposure to
chemicals to which the Plaintiff was exposed for his specific
conditions, Dr. Cook lacks sufficient facts to provide a reliable
opinion on general causation. She also finds that Dr. Cook's report
is unhelpful to the factfinder for many of the same reasons.
Therefore, the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of
Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the
reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr.
Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the minimal facts
necessary to establish general causation in the case, Judge Vance
grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony.
The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr.
Cook's report. The Plaintiff asserts that this sanction is
appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative
exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived
plaintiff of data which would quantitatively establish his
exposure.
Judge Vance holds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a
number of deficiencies. She says the Plaintiff's contention that
BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based
on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in
anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks
-- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous
deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Therefore, she denies the
Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction for the
Defendants' alleged spoliation.
Finally, in their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants
contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the
Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. In
his opposition to the Defendants' motion, the Plaintiff notes that
other sections of the Court have denied summary judgment in cases
in which B3 plaintiffs have brought claims premised on transient or
temporary symptoms.
Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his
claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed.
Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.
The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/nhukun48 from Leagle.com.
BROOKDALE SENIOR: August 14 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN BRIGHT, as Curator
of the ESTATE OF LEONARD FOOTE, and BARBARA J. ADAMS, as Power of
Attorney for DAVID G. ADAMS, on their own behalf and all others
similarly situated, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order granting their joint motion for one week extension of time to
file motion for class certification:
-- The parties request that the Court extend the deadline for
the
Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification by
seven
days to August 14, 2023.
-- The Defendant's Opposition to the Motion for Class
Certification
will therefore be due on September 11, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of the Motion for Class
Certification will therefore be due three weeks later on
October
2, 2023.
Brookdale Senior operates independent living, assisted living,
memory care, and continuing care retirement communities.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 12, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ormto7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christa L. Collins, Esq.
COLLINS LAW PLLC
433 Central Ave., 4th Floor
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701
Telephone: (727) 218-1763
E-mail: christa@clcclassactionlaw.com
- and -
Kelly Bagby, Esq.
Elizabeth Aniskevich, Esq.
Ali Naini, Esq.
AARP FOUNDATION
601 E. Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20049
Telephone: (202) 434-2072
E-mail: kbagby@aarp.org
eaniskevich@aarp.org
anaini@aarp.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Erica Rutner, Esq.
John A. Bertino, Esq.
MOORE & LEE, LLP
110 6th Street SE, Suite 1980
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (703) 940-3763
E-mail: e.rutner@mooreandlee.com
j.bertino@mooreandlee.com
- and -
Jessalyn H. Zeigler, Esq.
BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 742-6289
E-mail: jzeigler@bassberry.com
BRYAN COLLIER: Hardin Loses Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN W. HARDIN, V. BRYAN
COLLIER, ET AL., Case No. 1:22-cv-00463-MJT-CLS (E.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Michael J. Truncale entered an order adopting the
Magistrate Judge's Christine L. Stetson report and recommendation.
The Court previously referred this matter to the Honorable
Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge. The
magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends
that a motion for class certification be denied.
The Court has received and considered the Report and
Recommendation, along with the record and pleadings. No objections
to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/474rb3p at no extra charge.[CC]
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: TransCanada Found Liable for Aiding Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP, MERGER LITIGATION,
Consolidated C.A. No. 2018-0484-JTL (Del. Ch.), Judge J. Travis
Laster of the Court of Chancery of Delaware issued a post-trial
opinion holding that TC Energy Corp. is liable for aiding and
abetting the sell-side fiduciaries' breaches of duty during the
sale process.
In June 2016, TC Energy Corp. ("TransCanada") paid $25.50 per share
in cash to acquire Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. ("CPG"). Columbia
was a newly minted public company, spun off one year earlier.
During the sale process, Robert Skaggs, Jr., served as Columbia's
Chief Executive Officer and chair of its board of directors.
Stephen Smith served as Columbia's Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer. Both men held the same roles at Columbia's
parent company before the spinoff. Both wanted to retire early.
Both thought 2016 was the ideal year to retire, and both wanted to
cash out through a merger that would trigger their
change-in-control benefits. Both supported the spinoff and joined
Columbia expecting to get it sold.
Immediately after the spinoff, buyers came calling. Skaggs led a
haphazard sale process, during which each bidder entered into a
non-disclosure agreement ("NDA") containing a don't-ask-don't-waive
standstill. That type of provision both serves the traditional
standstill's role of prohibiting a bidder from seeking to acquire
the target without the target board's permission and provides the
additional protection of barring the bidder from asking the target
to waive the standstill or otherwise grant permission. It puts the
target board in the driver's seat, because a bidder can only make
an approach if the target board invites it.
TransCanada was one of the bidders. Francois Poirier, TransCanada's
Senior Vice President for Strategy and Corporate Development, led
TransCanada's deal team. Poirier is a savvy former investment
banker and repeat player in the M&A game. He fully understood the
implications of the standstill, both from his work as an M&A
professional and from a briefing by TransCanada's in-house
counsel.
During an earlier stage in his career, Poirier had spent a decade
as a relationship manager for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and he
visited Smith regularly in that role. Poirier made Smith his
principal point of contact for the sale process, and that tactical
decision proved pivotal. Smith was an experienced CFO, but he had
never been on the front lines of an M&A negotiation. Plus Smith is
trusting, team-oriented, and transparent -- all virtues for a
public company CFO, but vulnerabilities for a neophyte dealmaker on
his first and only assignment. Smith shared information freely. For
Poirier, Smith was a compliant informant.
At the end of November 2015, the Board shut down the sale process
so that Columbia could shore up its balance sheet with an equity
offering. Under the standstill, TransCanada could not contact
Columbia without an invitation. Poirier immediately made a
backchannel call to Smith. Through that call, Poirier learned that
management still wanted to sell and planned to resume the effort in
a couple months.
During December 2015, Poirier and his colleagues engaged in further
communications with Smith and Skaggs. Most notably, Poirier told
Smith on December 19 that TransCanada remained interested in a deal
and could pay up to $28 per share. He asked Smith to meet during
the first week of January 2016. With Skaggs's signoff, Smith
agreed.
On Jan. 7, 2016, Poirier and Smith had a face-to-face meeting.
Smith told Poirier that management wanted to sell and that
TransCanada would not face any competition from other bidders.
After the meeting, Skaggs and Smith created a data room so that
TransCanada could start conducting due diligence. During the last
week of January, TransCanada's CEO called Skaggs and provided an
oral expression of interest in a deal at $25 to $28 per share.
Those interactions breached the standstill, but Skaggs and Smith
made no effort to enforce it. Instead, Columbia's in-house counsel
told his TransCanada counterpart that nothing TransCanada was doing
implicated the standstill. The TransCanada lawyer knew better and
questioned that interpretation, but went along. Skaggs and Smith
opened the gates, invited TransCanada in, and demonstrated their
eagerness to sell.
After TransCanada's CEO provided his oral expression of interest,
Skaggs finally went to the Board and obtained permission to engage
in exclusive negotiations with TransCanada. As Poirier and his team
pressed forward, Skaggs and Smith undercut Columbia's bargaining
leverage through solicitous responses and a lack of pushback.
Poirier grew so confident about management's desire to sell that
TransCanada's first offer came in at $24 per share, one dollar
below its indicative range. Skaggs and Smith were offended.
TransCanada immediately upped its price to $25.25 per share, just
inside its indicative range. That made matters worse, because it
showed Skaggs and Smith that TransCanada had been trying to take
advantage of them. Skaggs and Smith recommended that the Board
reject the offer, which the Board did.
For 24 hours, the deal was dead. Through its banker, TransCanada
reengaged and asked for a counter. Skaggs and Smith proposed $26
per share in cash. TransCanada agreed to $26 but offered 90% in
cash and 10% in stock. Smith and Poirier agreed in principle. Both
sides believed they had a deal.
Then came a Wall Street Journal story about the negotiations.
TransCanada's exclusivity had expired, so when a second bidder
contacted Skaggs, Columbia could have engaged. But Skaggs and Smith
believed they had a deal and were on the verge of signing a formal
merger agreement, so they recommended that the Board renew
exclusivity. Skaggs prepared a script for incoming bidders which
said that Columbia only would respond to a serious written offer.
That was more than TransCanada had ever provided, even after
receiving diligence. Skaggs sent the script to TransCanada, and
when Poirier asked Smith about it, Smith told him that management
wanted to get a deal done with TransCanada and the script would
help them do that.
Poirier reneged on the agreement in principle at $26 per share,
lowered TransCanada's bid to $25.50 per share in cash, demanded an
answer within three days, and threatened to announce publicly that
the negotiations were dead unless Columbia accepted the reduced
offer. Skaggs and Smith considered countering at $25.75 per share,
but they did not want to lose a benefits-triggering deal. Rather
than pushing back, they recommended that the Board take what
TransCanada offered. The Board did, resulting in TransCanada
acquiring Columbia for $25.50 per share in cash.
The Plaintiffs sued Skaggs, Smith, and TransCanada. They asserted
that Skaggs and Smith breached their duty of loyalty during the
sale process. They also asserted that Skaggs and Smith breached
their duty of disclosure because the proxy statement issued in
connection with the Merger (the "Proxy Statement") was false and
misleading. The Plaintiffs asserted claims against TransCanada for
aiding and abetting the actionable breaches of duty by Skaggs and
Smith, as well as exculpated breaches of the duty of care by the
Board. Skaggs and Smith settled. TransCanada fought the case
through trial.
In September 2017, investors holding 963,478 shares, worth $203
million at the deal price, petitioned for appraisal. The case
proceeded to a five-day trial in October 2018. As the post-Merger
owner of the Company, TransCanada was the real party in interest in
the Appraisal Proceeding.
On Aug. 12, 2019, the court issued the Appraisal Decision, which
found that the fair value of Columbia's stock at the time of the
Merger was equal to the deal price of $25.50 per share. The
Appraisal Decision found that "the Proxy contained material
misstatements and omissions."
While the Appraisal Proceeding was pending, one of the Plaintiffs
in this action filed a complaint alleging that Skaggs, Smith, and
all of the former members of the Board had breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger, including by disseminating a
Proxy Statement that they knew was false and misleading, and
contending that TransCanada was jointly and severally liable as an
aider and abettor. The Plaintiff sought to consolidate its action
with the Appraisal Proceeding for a single trial. TransCanada
opposed that motion, and the court denied it.
After that ruling, the fiduciary litigation largely remained
dormant until after the issuance of the Appraisal Decision. Once
that proceeding concluded, this litigation resumed. The Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in which it dropped its claims against
the directors other than Skaggs. A second stockholder filed a
lawsuit asserting fundamentally the same claims, and the two cases
were consolidated.
The remaining Defendants -- Skaggs, Smith, and TransCanada -- moved
to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim on which
relief could be granted. The Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial
summary judgment. The court denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. It partially granted the motion for partial summary
judgment.
During discovery, the Plaintiffs settled with Skaggs and Smith.
Under the terms of that settlement, Skaggs and Smith agreed to pay
$79 million to resolve the claims against them. The court approved
the partial settlement on June 1, 2022. The case proceeded to trial
against TransCanada.
The Plaintiffs sought to hold TransCanada liable for aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by Skaggs, Smith, and the
outside directors on the Board. A claim for aiding and abetting a
breach of fiduciary duty has four elements: (i) the existence of a
fiduciary relationship giving rise to a duty to the plaintiff, (ii)
a breach of that duty by the fiduciary, (iii) knowing participation
in the breach by the defendant, and (iv) damages proximately caused
by the breach. The Plaintiffs asserted two distinct claims for
aiding and abetting. The first is based on breaches of duty during
the sale process (the "Sale Process Claim"). The second is based on
breaches of the duty of disclosure (the "Disclosure Claim").
Regarding the Sale Process Claim, Judge Laster holds that Tte
Plaintiffs proved that Skaggs and Smith breached their fiduciary
duties as officers during the sale process because they pursued a
transaction that would enable them to retire in 2016 with their
full change-in-control benefits and, under the influence of that
conflict of interest, took actions that fell outside the range of
reasonableness. The Plaintiffs proved that the outside directors on
the Board breached their duty of care by failing to exercise
sufficient oversight over Skaggs and Smith. Most importantly for an
aiding and abetting claim, they proved that TransCanada knowingly
participated in the breaches of duty.
For purposes of the dimension of knowledge, Judge Laster says the
Plaintiffs proved that TransCanada had, at a minimum, constructive
knowledge that Skaggs and Smith were breaching their duty of
loyalty and that the Board was not exercising sufficient oversight
over their activities. For purposes of the dimension of
participation, they proved that TransCanada exploited the sell-side
breaches of duty when TransCanada reneged on the $26 Deal,
substituted the $25.50 Offer, and backed it up with a coercive
threat that TransCanada had committed not to make.
TransCanada was only able to make that exploitive move with
confidence because Poirier had co-opted Smith, knew management
wanted to sell, had repeatedly taken actions that violated the
Standstill while encountering no resistance from Columbia
management, and had concluded with Wells Fargo that whatever game
Skaggs and Smith might be playing, it was not one in which skilled
M&A professionals were maneuvering for the best price. It was
rather one in which M&A newbies were going to be happy as long as
they got a deal done at a decent price that triggered their
change-in-control benefits and allowed them to retire. By
exploiting this scenario, TransCanada was able to buy Columbia for
$25.50 per share rather than proceeding with the $26 Deal.
For purposes of the Sale Process Claim, Judge Laster holds that
TransCanada is liable to the class in the amount of $1.00 per
share. This award necessarily results in the Plaintiffs receiving
more than the fair value of their shares, which the Appraisal
Decision determined to be $25.50 per share. That is because an
appraisal measures the value of the corporation as a standalone
entity, as if the merger giving rise to appraisal rights never
happened. An appraisal does not take into account other injuries,
such as the possibility that sell-side fiduciaries could breach
their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain a higher-valued
transaction.
With respect to the Disclosure Claim, Judge Laster holds that the
Plaintiffs proved that Skaggs, Smith, and the Board breached their
fiduciary duty of disclosure by seeking stockholder action based on
a proxy statement that contained material misstatements and
omissions. They proved that TransCanada knowingly participated in
the disclosure violations.
TransCanada knew information that the Proxy Statement failed to
disclose, such as material interactions that Girling, Poirier, and
Fornell had with Skaggs and Smith. It had a contractual obligation
to provide information about the disclosures to Columbia.
TransCanada chose to remain silent, dismissing the Proxy Statement
as Columbia's document. By doing so, it knowingly participated in a
breach of fiduciary duty.
Hence, Judge Laster says the Plaintiffs are entitled to damages of
$1 per share for the Sale Process Claim. That amount exceeds the
$0.50 per share for the Disclosure Claim, so it is all that they
can recover. If some or all of the class members were not able to
recover the $1 in damages for the Sale Process Claim, then those
class members could potentially recover the $0.50 per share for the
Disclosure Claim as a fallback.
This decision does not calculate the damages that TransCanada owes.
TransCanada has indicated that it will seek a credit against any
damages award based on the settlement that Skaggs and Smith
reached. The parties have not briefed that issue, but a settlement
credit appears warranted. TransCanada has also suggested that the
appraisal claimants may be bound by prior factual findings from the
Appraisal Decision such that their recovery could be limited. The
parties have not briefed that issue either, and while conceivable
before the issuance of this decision, that possibility now seems
strained. In any event, there are hurdles to overcome before a
damages award can be quantified.
In sum, Judge Laster concludes that TransCanada is liable for
aiding and abetting the sell-side fiduciaries' breaches of duty
during the sale process. He awards the Plaintiffs economic damages
of $1 per share based on the $26 Deal, which provides persuasive
evidence of the value that they would have received but for the
sell-side breaches of duty and TransCanada's culpable
participation.
TransCanada is liable for aiding and abetting the sell-side
fiduciaries' breaches of the duty of disclosure, Judge Laster adds.
He awards the Plaintiffs disclosure damages of $0.50 per share,
representing a discretionary amount designed to remedy the harm to
the stockholders' decisional and economic rights in a setting where
fiduciaries requested stockholder action, yet failed to provide the
stockholders with the information necessary to make an informed
decision.
The awards overlap. They are not cumulative. The maximum amount of
damages is $1 per share.
During earlier phases of the case, the parties have pointed to
issues that still need to be addressed before a final order can be
entered. Within 30 days, the parties will submit a joint letter
that identifies the unresolved issues and proposes a schedule for
bringing the case to a conclusion at the trial level, Judge Laster
orders.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2023 Pre-trial Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdz2m4z8 from Leagle.com.
Ned Weinberger -- nweinberger@labaton.com -- Derrick Farrell --
dfarrell@labaton.com -- Brendan W. Sullivan , LABATON SUCHAROW LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory V. Varallo , BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Stephen E. Jenkins --
SJenkins@ashbygeddes.com -- Marie M. Degnan --
MDegnan@ashbygeddes.com -- ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware; Jeroen van Kwawegen -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- Lauren A.
Ormsbee, Thomas G. James, Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, BERNSTEIN
LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New York, New York, Counsel for
Co-Lead Plaintiffs.
Martin S. Lessner -- mlessner@ycst.com -- James M. Yoch, Jr. --
jyoch@ycst.com -- Kevin P. Rickert, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Brian J. Massengill --
bmassengill@mayerbrown.com -- Michael Olsen, Matthew C. Sostrin --
msostrin@mayerbrown.com -- Linda X. Shi -- lshi@mayerbrown.com --
MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Counsel for Defendant TC Energy
Corporation.
DAVID ESQUIVEL: Jones, et al., Seek to Certify Cass Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones, et al., v. David
Esquivel, et al, (TV2), Case No. 1:23-cv-00112-TAV-SKL (E.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge entered an order pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure Rule 23, certifying class action.
The Plaintiffs include Randy Jones, Don Carter, Robert Winters, and
John Boatfield.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 12, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pUXm4N at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
DBI SERVICES: Jankowski Wins Bid to Certify Former Employee Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leonard Jankowski, et at.,
v. DBi Services, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01833-MEM (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Malachy E. Mannion entered an order maintaining class
action in accordance with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on
behalf of the following class of Plaintiffs:
"All former employees nominally employed by the Defendant, who
worked at or reported to any United States facility, operated by
the Defendant, including but not limited to those located at
-- 8 West Broad Street, Suit 216, Hazleton, PA 18201;
-- 100 North Conahan Drive, Hazleton, PA 18201;
-- 6209 Bowdendale Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32216;
-- 900 Shady Lane #B, Kissimmee, FL 34744;
-- 7940 Gainsfors Ct., Bristow, VA 20136;
-- 7442 Shipley Avenue, Harmans, MD 21077; and
-- 137 East Williams Street, Albert Lea, MN 56007,
where 50 or more employees, excluding part-time employees [as
defined under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
("WARN") Act] were terminated without cause on their part on or
about October 22, 2021. Or within 90 days of that date or
thereafter as part of, or as the reasonably expected consequence
of, an alleged mass layoff and/or plant closing (as defined by the
WARN Act) at the Facilities and who do not file a timely request to
opt-out of the class."
The Court further entered an order that:
1. The class claims consist of violations of the WARN Act.
2. The Plaintiff, Leonard Jankowski, is certified as a class
representative.
3. Michael R. Miller and James Hugget of Margolis Edelstein are
appointed to serve as class counsel.
4. The Plaintiff's notice is approved with the requirement that
the
dates are updated to reflect the current year.
DBi Services is engaged in transportation infrastructure operations
and maintenance.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rJjzDs at no extra charge.[CC]
DNC PARKS: Vegas Seeks Time Extension to File Class Cert Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID PEREZ, an
individual; MARIA SOCORRO VEGA, an individual, and on behalf of
others similarly situated; v. DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT ASILOMAR,
INC., a California Corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT SEQUOIA, a
California Corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT YOSEMITE, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT KING'S CANYON, INC., a
California Corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT TENAYA INC., a
Delaware Corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES PARKS & RESORTS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00484-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Vega
applies ex parte for an order continuing the deadline to file her
reply in support of her motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff also applies ex parte for an order granting her leave
to take depositions of the 36 putative class members who submitted
declarations in support of the Defendants' opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification or, alternatively, at
least 12 putative class members who submitted declarations in
support of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
This application is made on the grounds that the Plaintiff's reply
in support of her motion for class certification is currently due
on July 24, 2023, but the Plaintiff has not yet been able to
schedule the depositions of any of the 36 putative class members
who submitted declarations in support of the Defendants' opposition
to the motion for class certification.
However, on July 7, 2023, ahead of the Defendants' July 10, 2023
deadline to file an opposition to the motion for class
certification, the Plaintiff's counsel requested that the
Defendants stipulate to an eight-week continuance of the Plaintiff
reply deadline.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 13, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ovtjd8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Mikael Stahle, Esq.
Irina Kirnosova, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
mstahle@maternlawgroup.com
ikirnosova@maternlawgroup.com
FACEBOOK INC: Final Settlement Approval Sought in User Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 to enter an order approving the settlement
class and final settlement approval.
The Settlement provides an excellent outcome for the Class. The
non-reversionary Settlement Fund of $725 million is the largest
data privacy class action settlement ever and the most Facebook has
ever paid to resolve a private action.
The outcome is extraordinary in light of the developing state of
the law on privacy, including precedent relating to standing for
privacy
claims, consent, and theories of damages arising from Facebook's
actions.
The Settlement Class is defined as "all Facebook users in the
United States during the Class Period," which runs from May 24,
2007, through December 22, 2022, inclusive.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 21, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43Ck930 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley E. Weaver, 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
- and -
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
FINDLAY'S TALL: Court Narrows Claims in Freeland Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC FREELAND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FINDLAY'S TALL TIMBERS DISTRIBUTION CENTER, LLC d/b/a OHIO
LOGISTICS, Case No. 6:22-cv-06415-FPG (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Frank P. Geraci, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the defendant's motion to dismiss.
On January 11, 2023, the Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The
Plaintiff filed his response on February 8, 2023, and the Defendant
replied on March 1, 2023.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring his FSLA claim on behalf of himself
and all similarly situated persons who work or have worked for the
Defendant as hourly workers (the FSLA Collective).
The Plaintiff seeks to bring his NYLL claims on behalf of himself
and all persons who worked for the Defendant as hourly workers in
New York between February 9, 2016, and the date of final judgment
in this matter.
On January 11, 2023, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The
Defendant has also moved, in the alternative, to strike any class
claims outside of the period of the Plaintiff's employment.
n September 28, 2022, the Plaintiff Eric Freeland filed this
putative wage-and-hour class action against the Defendant Findlay's
Tall Timbers Distribution Center, LLC d/b/a Ohio Logistics.
From April 2021 through April 2022, the Defendant employed the
Plaintiff at one of its warehouses in Painted Post, New York. The
Plaintiff's duties involved, among other things, lifting and
carrying equipment and freight, operating heavy machinery, and
breaking down ceramic parts by hand.
The Defendant is an Ohio-based company that provides warehousing
and logistical support services throughout the eastern United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DsItcQ at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST STUDENT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Navarro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Navarro, on behalf of herself and all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. First Student, Inc. and First
Student Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04356 (N.D.
Ill., July 6, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid employee for Defendants at
Defendants' Batavia, Illinois location. Allegedly, the Defendants
did not properly calculate Plaintiff's overtime rates because they
did not capture all necessary compensation required. They failed to
include all additional compensation when calculating Plaintiff and
other employees’ overtime rates as required by FLSA and IMWL,
says the Plaintiff.
First Student Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 600
Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. It does extensive business in
Illinois and across the nation as a transportation company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, PC
200 E 5th Ave Suite 115
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (312) 861-1800
Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
- and -
Patrick Cowlin, Esq.
FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, PC
111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 861-1800
Facsimile: (312) 861-3009
FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Certification of Several Claims Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA NAVARRO et al., 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 Parties jointly move the
Court for entry of an Order:
1. Certifying claims one, two, and three of this litigation as a
class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a) and 23(b)(2) on
behalf of a class defined as follows:
"All present and future male students at the Florida
Institute
of Technology, Inc. who participate or will participate in
intercollegiate athletics and are thus entitled to:
(1) the allocation of athletic participation opportunities;
(2) the allocation of benefits provided to varsity athletes;
and
(3) the allocation of student financial aid to varsity
athletes,
in compliance with the requirements of 20 U.S.C. section
1681 et. seq. (Title IX);
2. Appointing counsel from Arthur T. Schofield, P.A., and the
Larew
Law Office as class counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g);
3. Appointing the named the Plaintiffs as representatives of the
class; and
4. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just
On June 2, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification. The Plaintiffs reached out to the Defendant Florida
Institute of Technology, Inc. prior to moving for class
certification to determine if an agreement could be reached but the
parties were unable to do so. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed
their motion seeking class certification.
Florida tech subsequently agreed that its consent to class
certification would preserve the resources of both the Court and
the parties, and will streamline the litigation. Accordingly,
Florida Tech consents to class certification as sought in the
Plaintiffs' Motion, and hereby joins the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(2).
Florida Institute offers degrees in aeronautics, business,
engineering, psychology/liberal arts and the sciences.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 13, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rK4x0f at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arthur T. Schofield, Esq.
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A.
330 Clematis Street, Suite 207
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 655-4211
E-mail: aschofield@flalabor.com
- and -
James C. Larew, Esq.
Claire M. Diallo, Esq.
LAREW LAW OFFICE
504 E. Bloomington Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Telephone: (319) 337-7079
E-mail: James.Larew@LarewLawOffice.com
Claire.Diallo@LarewLawOffice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
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
- and -
Matthew D. Gurbach, Esq.
Kasey Nielsen, Esq.
Drew Campbell, Esq.
Jeffrey Knight, Esq.
BRICKER GRAYDON LLP
1350 Euclid Avenue, Suite 650
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 523-5405
Facsimile: (216) 523-7071
E-mail: mgurbach@bricker.com
knielsen@bricker.com
mgurbach@brickergraydon.com
knielsen@brickergraydon.com
dcampbell@brickergraydon.com
jknight@brickergraydon.com
FPT OPERATING: Dismissal Bid in Scherrer TCPA Class Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that FPT Operating Co.
must face a proposed class action alleging it made marketing calls
to consumers without their consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff Maura Scherrer plausibly alleged that the system used by
FPT in making the calls was an automatic telephone dialing system
within the meaning of the TCPA, Judge S. Kato Crews of the US
District Court for the District of Colorado said on July 20, 2023,
rejecting FPT's motion to dismiss.
Scherrer alleged that FPT, a business-payments processing provider
doing business as Talus Payments, violated the TCPA by calling her
cellular telephone number. [GN]
FRANK KENDALL: Holfer Seeks to Certify National Guard Veteran Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH HOFFLER, v. FRANK
KENDALL III, Case No. 8:23-cv-00170-PJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following class
with him as the class representative:
"All African American Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air
Force
National Guard veterans who:
(1) received administrative discipline; and
(2) were involuntarily separated, demoted, denied promotion, or
otherwise had their career negatively impacted because of the
administrative discipline."
The Plaintiff also moves to appoint undersigned counsel, Carol A.
Thompson, as class counsel. The proposed class meets the
requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation of Rule 23(a) and the requested equitable relief
meets the requirements under Rule 23(b)(2) because it is
appropriate for the class as a whole, the Plaintiff contends.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 12, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/472c36y at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carol A. Thompson, Esq.
FEDERAL PRACTICE GROUP
1750 K Street Northwest, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006-2317
Telephone: (202) 862-4360
Facsimile: (888) 899-6053
E-mail: cthompson@fedpractice.com
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Hamad Class Suit Over Inflated Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Pennington of The Brunswick News reports Frontier Airlines
markets itself as having the lowest fares, but a new class-action
lawsuit alleges the Denver-based carrier makes up the difference
with hidden, inflated fees.
Florida resident Amira Hamad filed the 21-page lawsuit in U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in late June,
seeking a refund of the fees and $100 million in punitive damages
for herself and others.
A spokesperson for Frontier said the airline doesn't comment on
pending litigation.
Hamad said in the lawsuit that she booked a round-trip flight with
Frontier after seeing an "attractive" price online and reading on
the company's website that passengers are allowed one free personal
item no larger than 14 inches tall, 18 inches wide and 8 inches
deep.
According to the lawsuit, when Hamad arrived at her gate,
Frontier's bag sizer was smaller than the dimensions advertised on
the website. When her bag wouldn't fit into the allegedly shrunken
bag sizer, the airline charged Hamad $100 for her "oversized"
personal item -- nearly four times the price of checking a bag.
Hamad said in the lawsuit that before taking off on her return
flight, she measured her personal item using the bag checker at a
Spirit Airlines gate -- with the same dimensions Frontier claims to
have online -- and it fit perfectly.
In the lawsuit, Hamad said Frontier is intentionally hiding fees
and obscuring fee structures from customers "in order to
fraudulently induce sales."
She also claimed the airline incentives upcharges by giving
employees bonuses for charging passengers additional baggage fees
at the gate.
"Frontier's bait-and-switch and 'gotcha' tactics are designed to
confuse, trick and trap consumers to the public's detriment," the
lawsuit states.
The lawsuit alleges Frontier's claims to "save you money on your
flights" and "offer the lowest fairs" are false advertising, since
the total cost to consumers with extra fees matches or exceeds
other airlines.
The class action claims Frontier is guilty of breach of contract
and fraudulent misrepresentation, under Florida common law, and of
violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and
Florida laws regarding misleading advertising.
Frontier should be required by the court to disclose its fee
structure clearly online, correct and post personal item dimensions
on the bag sizers and discontinue deceptive practices, the lawsuit
stated.
In addition to the refunded fees and $100 million in punitive
damages, Hamad's lawsuit also asks the court to assign a fee of
$10,000 for each violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act. [GN]
GEMINI SOLAR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 18
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN PACK, et al., v.
GEMINI SOLAR LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01156-SDM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered a scheduling order
as follows:
-- The parties shall exchange initial Aug. 18, 2023
Disclosures:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or Oct. 6, 2023
to join additional parties shall be
filed by:
-- The motion to certify class shall be Sept. 18, 2023
filed by:
-- All discovery shall be completed by: June 28, 2024
-- Any dispositive motions shall be July 31, 2024
filed by:
-- Primary expert reports must be May 3, 2024
produced by:
-- Rebuttal expert reports must be June 7, 2024
produced by:
The case is a class and collective action in which the Plaintiffs
seek unpaid overtime and other unpaid compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Ohio state statutory law.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kf9LHx at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Counts Class Suit Over Chevrolet Cruze Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a Chevy Cruze class
action lawsuit has been dismissed after the judge could find no
evidence of cheating on emissions tests, and an appeals court ruled
federal regulators call the shots over emissions regulations.
The judge notes the plaintiffs, General Motors and the Robert Bosch
company have spent years in court regarding allegedly illegal
diesel emissions involving 2014-2015 Chevrolet Cruze cars.
The entire ordeal began with Volkswagen's use of emissions defeat
devices to fool federal regulators and consumers.
Attorneys across the country began filing massive class action
lawsuits against several automakers alleging real-world emissions
were higher than estimates from the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The Chevy Cruze emissions lawsuit alleges owners overpaid for their
2014-2015 vehicles because they were duped into buying "clean
diesel" vehicles that weren't so clean.
While the judge had already found no evidence of defeat devices in
the Cruze cars, a recent ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals put an end to the Cruze case.
The Chevy Cruze Emissions Lawsuit
The GM class action alleges real-world testing proves the clean
diesel Chevy Cruze emits far more pollution on the roads than in
lab testing. The plaintiffs assert the Cruze cars emit dangerous
and illegal levels of nitrogen oxides above maximum EPA standards.
The Cruze class action was filed in 2016, but in 2021 things
weren't looking good for the plaintiffs when the judge saw no
evidence of defeat devices even after more than 400 discovery
filings.
In August 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case
as a class action.
But according to the judge, in April 2023, "the Sixth Circuit
dismissed seemingly identical claims as impliedly preempted by the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), and its corresponding
regulations for emissions testing, In re Ford Motor Co. F-150 &
Ranger Truck Fuel Econ. Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig."
General Motors told the judge, "implied preemption warrants
dismissal of Plaintiffs' state-law claims," and "state laws that
'interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of congress, made in
pursuance of the constitution' are invalid."
Judge Thomas L. Ludington references the Ford ruling from the Sixth
Circuit which dismissed the Ford emissions class action lawsuit.
Judge Ludington explained how the Sixth Circuit found the federal
government handles emissions-related issues, not lawyers, experts
or juries.
"First, because the EPA accepted Ford's testing information and
published its estimate based on that information, plaintiffs'
claims essentially challenge the EPA's figures."
"Second, allowing juries to second-guess the EPA's fuel economy
figures would permit them to rebalance the EPA's objectives."
"Third, as the EPA has the authority to approve or reject fuel
economy figures, its 'federal statutory scheme amply empowers the
[agency] to punish and deter fraud.'" "Finally, state-law claims
would skew the disclosures that manufacturers need to make to the
EPA."
According to Judge Ludington:
"Allowing plaintiffs and juries to override these judgments could
give rise to a shadow regulatory system -- one led by lawyers and
experts, rather than by Congress and the EPA. Plaintiffs' claims
would overstep the EPA's powers to penalize and to prevent fraud.
In sum, the state-law claims that Plaintiffs have advanced here are
preempted by the Clean Air Act."
After eight years of arguments, Judge Ludington dismissed the GM
emissions lawsuit with prejudice.
The Chevrolet Cruze class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court Eastern District off Michigan: Counts, et al., v.
General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody & Agnello, PC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Seeger
Weiss LLP. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Counts Class Suit with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON COUNTS et al., v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, and ROBERT BOSCH, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-12541-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L.
Ludington entered an order dismissing Counts Case with prejudice
under implied preemption and denying pending motion as moot.
Lastly, the Plaintiffs say their claims do not hinge on any EPA
findings, unlike those in Ford; they are based on the existence of
defeat devices and public misrepresentations about them. But both
are true here, as explained earlier. The alleged devices would
defeat the EPA's emissions-output testing, which the EPA has the
power "to punish and deter." Thus, the Plaintiffs' challenges to
the figures that the EPA approved renders their claims impliedly
preempted by the CAA, the Court says.
In sum, the state-law claims that the Plaintiffs have advanced here
are preempted by the Clean Air Act. In all respects, they mirror
the state-law claims that were preempted in Ford Motor Co. F-150 &
Ranger Truck Fuel Econ. Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig., 65 F.4th 851
(6th Cir. 2023), the Court adds.
In this emissions-regulations case, the parties have spent years
litigating the allegations that General Motors and Robert Bosch LLC
misled consumers into purchasing a GM-manufactured car by
installing devices that defeated the emissions testing approved by
the Environmental Protection Agency. But then the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals recently dismissed a substantially similar claim
as preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C.
section 6201 et seq. The parties were directed to submit
supplemental briefing regarding whether this case should be
dismissed under that new precedent.
The Plaintiffs are a group of consumers who purchased a 2014 or
2015 Chevrolet Cruze diesel and seek to represent a putative class
of:
all persons who purchased or leased a [diesel Cruze]."
The Plaintiffs' alleged injury is their overpayment for a diesel
Cruze caused by the Defendants General Motors and Bosch duping them
into buying a diesel Cruze with a "defeat device" that made the
emissions comply with the regulations of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board
("CARB").
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44w1Wp3 at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing of Class Cert Reply Due August 4
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY. on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order granting joint motion
to set briefing schedule regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and defendant's motion to exclude the opinions and
testimony of plaintiff's expert Darren Manzari.
-- The Plaintiffs deadline to file reply Aug. 4, 2023
in support of motion for class
certification:
-- The Plaintiffs deadline to file Aug. 4, 2023
opposition to GM's motion to
exclude the opinion and
testimony of the Plaintiffs
expert Darren Manzari:
-- GM's deadline to file reply in Sept. 1, 2023
support of its motion to exclude
the opinion and testimony of the
Plaintiffs expert Darren Manzari”
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rFIBDo at no extra charge.[CC]
GIVAUDAN SA: Crimson Sues Over Candles, Soap Pricing Collusion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Wray of Cosmetics Business reports that a prospective class
action filed in a New Jersey, US court last week has become the
latest case mounted against fragrance giants Givaudan, Firmenich,
International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF) and Symrise.
The lawsuits follow the announcement of investigations by antitrust
authorities in Switzerland, Europe, the UK and the US into
suspected pricing collusion earlier this year.
This latest case was filed on 20 July on behalf of Texas-based
Crimson Candle Supplies and other US businesses selling scented
products, such as candles and soaps.
The complaint from Crimson Candle's lawyers read: "Defendants'
conspiracy to inflate the price of fragrances by allocating
products and customers harmed plaintiff and members of the class."
"Plaintiff and the class are the direct purchasers of fragrances
and fragrance ingredients from defendants."
Crimson Candle's case is represented by law firms Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, but other
plaintiffs' firms have filed cases, including Hausfeld, Berger
Montague, Gustafson Gluek and Korein Tillery, according to
Reuters.
On 7 March, Switzerland's Firmenich and Givaudan, US-headquartered
IFF and Germany's Symrise were subjected to dawn raids at various
locations by the Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO) working in
consultation with the European Commission, the US Department of
Justice Antitrust Division and the UK Competition and Markets
Authority (CMA).
At the time, all the companies in question told Cosmetics Business
that they were cooperating with the authorities, while a COMCO
representative confirmed that the investigation would examine
whether there had indeed been restrictions of competition
prohibited by cartel law.
They added that, given its complexity, the investigation would
probably last for two or three years.
In May, meanwhile, Symrise asked the Luxembourg-based General Court
to annul the European Commission's decision ordering the raids.
The German company argued the Commission "did not have sufficient
indicia providing reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant's
involvement in any competition law infringement".
It also took issue with the raid decision's wording, saying it "did
not place the applicant in a position to understand the scope of
the inspection, and thus exercise its rights of defence". [GN]
GOD'S KINGDOM: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Watts
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESG Watts Inc et al v.
God's Kingdom, Ltd et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-04110-SLD-JEH (C.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order
as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43G8P61 at no extra charge.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Must Comply with Common Law Obligations, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE I, et al. on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-02343-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for a preliminary injunction directing Google to
comply with its statutory and common law obligations by doing the
following:
1. Prohibit Google from continuing to acquire Health Information
from Health Care Providers through Tracking Technologies
associated with Google's advertising systems and products,
including Google Analytics, Google Ads, Google Display Ads,
Google Tag Manager, Google APIs and YouTube.
2. Prohibit Google from using patients' Health Information that
it
has collected from Health Care Providers through its use of
Google Source Code. Specifically, for each of the steps
above,
Google shall be required to remove Health Information from
its
advertising systems no later than 30 days after it ceases
acquiring Health Information from any specific Health Care
Provider property.
3. Order Google to take all reasonable steps to immediately
preserve, maintain, sequester, segregate, and impound all
data,
documents, and information, including electronically stored
information, that may be potentially relevant to this Action,
and to confirm in writing that it has done so along with the
specific steps it has taken, including to identify the types
or
categories of data being preserved. Such preservation shall
occur on systems outside of Google's advertising architecture
such that the information is not used for advertising
purposes,
consistent with the Court's order that Google cease using
Health
Information.
4. Provisionally certify the following class pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of entering
preliminary injunctive relief
"All persons in the United States whose Health Information
was
obtained by Google from their Health Care Provider."
5. Appoint John Doe I, John Doe II, Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II,
Jane
Doe III, Jane Doe IV and Jane Doe V as representatives of the
Class and appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel, Simmons Hanly
Conroy
LLC, Kiesel Law LLP, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law LLP, and Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
as
interim class counsel.
The Plaintiffs move for preliminary injunction on the basis that
Google uses the Google Source Code to track, intercept and collect
the Plaintiffs' unique identifiers, along with content of
communications that they exchange with their Health Care Provider
(which include communications exchanged on authenticated and
unauthenticated webpages). Google then monetizes that information
through its advertising systems for financial gain. Google's
conduct is unlawful and ongoing, and the acquisition and use of the
Plaintiffs' Health Information caused and continues to cause
irreparable harm.
The Plaintiffs bring this motion to stop Google from intercepting
and using patient's Health Information from HIPAA and CMIA-covered
entities, e.g., Health Care Providers, through its use of the
Google Source Code.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company focusing
on artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine
technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing,
e-commerce, and consumer electronics.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 13, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QfzMdv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
Eric Johnson, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law
kiesel@kiesel.law
ramirez@kiesel.law
- and -
Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
Sean Russell, Esq.
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Ethan Binder, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: hcunningham@scott-scott.com
srussell@scott-scott.com
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
ebinder@scott-scott.com
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Melissa Gardner, Esq.
Jalle H. Dafa, Esq.
Douglas Cuthbertson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: 415-956-1008
E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
mgardner@lchb.com
jdafa@lchb.com
dcuthbertson@lchb.com
GREATBANC TRUST: Court Oks Bid to Amend Sched Order in Szalanski
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Szalanski, Brenda v.
Greatbanc Trust Company et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00940 (W.D. Wisc.,
Filed Nov. 15, 2019), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an
order granting motion to amend/correct scheduling Order.
-- The remainder of the schedule is struck and discovery is
stayed.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act involving Recovery of Benefits to Employee.
GreatBanc is a full-service trust company and independent ERISA
fiduciary specializing in Employee Stock Ownership Plans
(ESOPs).[CC]
GREENIX PEST: Hutt Bid for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH HUTT, v. GREENIX
PEST CONTROL, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00112-TAV-SKL (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order denying
Mr. Hutt's motion seeking Court-Supervised Notice to Potential
Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
The Court said, "Mr. Hutt has not shown that there is a strong
likelihood that other employees are similarly situated to him. The
only evidence that Mr. Hutt submits in support of his Motion is his
own declaration—in which he makes clear that his knowledge is
based on hearsay; what Mr. Hutt knows about how other employees are
paid is based "on the company wide compensation plan and
discussions with co-workers."
Mr. Hutt has failed to provide the Court with the Defendant’s
company-wide compensation plan. Nevertheless, the mere fact that a
company has a company wide compensation plan is not necessarily
evidence of company-wide FLSA violations. A plaintiff must submit
evidence that he was treated similarly to other employees -- i.e.,
that he was not the subject of human error or a rogue manager, but
that his FLSA injury resulted from a corporate-wide decision to
refuse to pay
overtime.Mr. Hutt has failed to establish a strong likelihood that
there is a class of potential plaintiff employees similarly
situated to him, the Court adds.
Mr. Hutt seeks to send notice of this case to a class of all Pest
Control Technicians1 employed by the Greenix Holdings at four
facilities in Ohio from February 28, 2017 to the present.
Greenix is a provider of environmentally friendly pest control and
animal management in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QbmH53 at no extra charge.[CC]
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKI O'HAILPIN, NINA
ARIZUMI, ROBERT ESPINOSA, ERWIN YOUNG, PUANANI BADIANG, SABRINA
FRANKS, RONALD LUM, DAN SAIKI, and BRANDEE AUKAI, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAWAIIAN
AIRLINES, INC. and HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-00532-JAO-RT (D. Haw.), the Parties stipulate and agree
extending class certification deadlines as follows:
Event Old Deadline New Deadline
Plaintiffs' motion due July 24, 2023 Aug. 7, 2023
Defendants' response due Aug. 24, 2023 Sept. 7, 2023
Plaintiffs' reply due Sept. 7, 2023 Sept. 21,
2023
On March 14, 2023, the Court set a schedule for class certification
discovery and for the briefing on the motion for class
certification.
On May 19, 2023, the parties sought and the Court granted a
two-week extension on the schedule for class certification
discovery and for the briefing on the motion for class
certification.
On June 14, 2023, the parties sought and the Court granted a tenday
extension on the schedule for class certification discovery and for
the briefing on the motion for class certification.
The parties have been working to agree on the scope of discovery
necessary for class certification so as to meet the deadlines with
the goal of not needing to raise discovery issues with the Court.
Hawaiian Airlines is an operator of commercial flights to and from
the U.S. state of Hawaii.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 13, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KbuZ9q at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Hochberg, Esq.
JAMES HOCHBERG, A.A.L. LLLC
Bishop Street Tower, Ste. 2100
700 Bishop Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 534-1514
Facsimile: (808) 538-3075
E-mail: jim@jameshochberglaw.com
- and -
John C. Sullivan, Esq.
Austin R. Nimocks, Esq.
Jace Yarbrough, Esq.
S|L LAW PLLC
610 Uptown Blvd., Ste. 2000
Cedar Hill, TX 75104
Telephone: (469) 523-1351
Facsimile: (469) 613-0891
E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com
austin.nimocks@the-sl-lawfirm.com
jace.yarbrough@the-sl-lawfirm.com
- and -
Walker Moller, Esq.
SIRI | GLIMSTAD
700 S. Flower St., Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 376-3739
E-mail: wmoller@sirillp.com
HOWARD MEMORIAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BONITA MARTIN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
HOWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and JOHN DOE INSURANCE CARRIER, Case No.
4:23-cv-04030-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey
entered an order granting the Plaintiff Martin's Unopposed Motion
to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend the Motion for Class
Certification Filing Deadline:
-- Any motion for class certification must be filed on or before
Tuesday, September 5, 2023.
-- All other remaining pretrial filing deadlines set forth in the
Court's Final Scheduling Order remain.
On January 12, 2023, Martin filed the instant action on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated. Martin filed the action in
Howard County Circuit Court, but on March 7, 2023, the Defendant
Howard Memorial Hospital (the Hospital) removed the action to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
In her complaint, Martin alleges that between November 14, 2022,
and December 4, 2022, third-party hackers breached the Hospital's
data servers, stealing patients' and employees' highly sensitive
personal and medical information (specifically, their Personal
Identifying Information and Protected Health Information).
Howard Memorial Hospital is a critical access hospital.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KbI4zh at no extra charge.[CC]
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Roque Sues Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
FRANK A. ROQUE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEURIG DR PEPPER INC. d/b/a "Mott's LLP" and
"Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc.," a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIV-SB-2315038 (Cal. Super.,
San Bernardino Cty., July 6, 2023) arises out of the Defendants'
violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code, the applicable Wage Orders issued by the
California Industrial Welfare Commission and related common law
principles.
Plaintiff Roque worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee from
approximately August 2010 to July 13, 2022, in Victorville,
California. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff was not
properly paid with straight time, minimum, and/or overtime wages
for all hours worked and was not reimbursed for all work-related
expenses. Among other things, the Plaintiff did not receive
accurate itemized wage statements and was deprived to take all
legally-required meal periods, says the suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including full
restitution from Defendants as a result 0f Defendants' unlawful,
fraudulent and/or unfair business practices.
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. d/b/a "Mott's LLP" and "Dr Pepper Snapple
Group Inc, is a Delaware corporation and the owner and operator of
an industry, business and/or facilities in California. The company
manufactures and sells food and beverage products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
Gregg Lander, Esq.
Vanessa Ruggles, Esq.
DAVTYAN LAW FIRM
1635 Pontius Avenue, Floor 2
Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
Telephone: (424) 320-6420
Facsimile: (424) 320-6454
E-mail: Emil@davtyanlaw.com
Gregg@davtyanlaw.com
KEVIN CARR: Antrim Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALTON ANTRIM, v. KEVIN
CARR, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00396-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for class certification and
appointing his attorneys as class counsel.
The Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) seeks to certify
the case as a class action on behalf of all individuals not under
criminal supervision who are subject to lifetime GPS monitoring
pursuant to Wis. Stats. Section 301.48(2)(a), sections (1)-(3m) and
(7).
The Plaintiff contends that he prepared to vigorously pursue
class-wide relief and because he is represented by competent and
experienced counsel, he satisfies Rule 23(a)(4)'s adequacy
requirements.
The Plaintiff Antrim was released from prison in 2013 and
successfully completed his period of community supervision in
October 2018. He is no longer under any kind of criminal
supervision.
Nonetheless, pursuant to Wis. Stats. Section 301.48(2)(a), he is
currently forced to wear a GPS ankle monitor and is subject to
lifetime GPS monitoring by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.
The Plaintiff Antrim, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, challenges the constitutionality of lifetime
GPS monitoring of individuals who are not under active criminal
supervision.
The Plaintiff contends that lifetime GPS monitoring violates the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and seeks an injunction prohibiting the Department of Corrections
from continuing to enforce the statute requiring lifetime
monitoring.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 13, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44LudrY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
5707 W. Goodman Street
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (847) 361-3869
E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com
- and -
Mark g. Weinberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
3612 N. Tripp Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Telephone: (773) 283-3913
E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net
KEVIN O'DONOVAN: Wins Class Suit Over Tenants' Anti-Social Behavior
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eoghan Dalton of The Journal reports that a landlord has won an
appeal against a decision which would have seen him liable for
"hundreds of thousands" of euro in compensation to households in a
Cork city suburb over claims that he failed to address anti-social
behaviour by his tenants.
Eagle Valley Residents' Association had taken a landmark case to
the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) on behalf of 188 households
in the Wilton estate over a raft of complaints that the estate was
being impacted by the behaviour of people living in a house owned
by O'Donovan, including drug-related activity and violent
incidents.
Residents won the original case but landlord Kevin O'Donovan
appealed the decision to the Tenancies Tribunal, which has now
ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with a 'class
action' type of proceeding.
The householders would have been awarded compensation if the ruling
had stood.
A solicitor for the residents' association said the ruling, which
found that affected residents should have named themselves in the
complaint, would mean that those "most affected by anti-social
behaviour can no longer protect their anonymity" by complaining
under the umbrella of their residents' association.
"Instead they [would] have to be personally named in the complaint,
often against their immediate neighbour, and thereby be put at risk
of intimidation and harassment while waiting for such a claim to be
heard," solicitor Barry Sheehan told The Journal.
In his appeal hearing last October, O'Donovan complained that he
was "personally exposed for several hundred thousand" euro in
compensation to the residents due to the RTB being able to award
compensation worth up to GBP20,000 for each complainant.
The tribunal had to also decide whether it could allow each
household to be compensated. While the residents' total cost of
claim could theoretically have risen to over a million euro, some
compensation awards were likely to have been significantly lower
than the capped figure as some residents would have been more
impacted than others, depending on how close they lived to the home
in question.
O'Donovan maintained in his defence that when he received "full,
comprehensive evidence" of the alleged criminal activity by his
tenants in November 2021, he took actions with an aim to terminate
the tenancy.
Decision
The tribunal ruled it does not have jurisdiction to consider the
complaint as the residents' association was not "recognisable at
law".
"The complaint is therefore dismissed in its entirety," it said.
The case was taken under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, with
section 16(h) of the legislation stating that tenants are not to
behave within the rental home, or in its vicinity, in a way that is
anti-social.
In its reasoning, the tribunal said that the wording of the Act is
"clear and unambiguous" in whether the tribunal could have
jurisdiction, because the residents' association was an
“unincorporated body” which has sought "to take a claim on its
own behalf".
Sheehan had argued that as the residents' association was an "agent
of its members", it could be considered a body that could take such
a legal claim on their behalf, while also offering protection to
the householders as many were reluctant to identify themselves due
to the anti-social behaviour taking place within the estate.
However, the tribunal ruled that it was "open for the affected
residents themselves to be named" on the application to the RTB and
tribunal. "But this was not done," it said.
It added that the residents' association was treated as a party to
the complaint which it said was "incorrect".
"There being no other party named in bringing the complaint, the
Tribunal finds that it has no complaint before it and dismisses the
original complaint of the residents' association. This replaces the
decision of the adjudicator in this case."
Barry Sheehan said the tribunal had "exploited poor parliamentary
draftsmanship" by TDs and senators who designed the legislation.
He said that from a lookback at Dail debates, he believed the "true
intention of the Oireachtas" was to allow unincorporated residents'
associations to "prosecute class action claims on behalf of their
members, in the name of the association, against tenants engaged in
anti-social behaviour".
Sheehan added: "The RTB has acted in its own self interest here as
it clearly doesn't want to deal with these types of claims which
would be more resource-intensive."
Sheehan said this means that people "most affected by anti-social
behaviour" can no longer protect their anonymity, and are therefore
at risk of "intimidation and harassment" while waiting for their
claim to be heard.
"The Government needs to urgently introduce legislation to reverse
this unwelcome decision by the Tribunal," he said.
Tribunal hearing
At last year's preliminary tribunal hearing, Sheehan had said
residents contested O'Donovan's stance that he "took all reasonable
steps in seeking to enforce his tenants' statutory duty" in
relation to their behaviour.
The tribunal heard that there were "years" of alleged incidents in
the estate, and that O'Donovan did not contest that there was
anti-social behavior by the tenants.
In his appeal, O'Donovan explained that any slowness in responding
to complaints about his tenants was due to "defective legal advice"
he received at the time.
However, the landlord insisted he acted quickly to address
concerns.
In September 2021, he served them a notice of termination to evict
them from the property. He claimed the tenants began to 'overhold',
refusing to leave.
The case made its way to the RTB which ruled in August last year
that O'Donovan's eviction notice was valid. His tenants vacated the
property around this time.
Both sides were allowed a brief break to allow consultation as a
way of finding resolution, but the compensation claim remained.
Sheehan and O'Donovan had agreed that the latter was "accepting
there was anti-social behaviour" by the tenants.
The hearing saw the tribunal co-chair's Roderick Maguire urging
both sides to speak "off the record" and decide whether the matter
can be "settled without prejudice" to avoid the tribunal being
required to make a ruling.
Otherwise, the decision would "remain on the internet forever",
Maguire warned. [GN]
KILOLO KIJAKAZI: Extension to File Bid for Settlement OK Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Campos et al v. Kijakazi,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05143-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting their request for a three-week extension
of the deadline to file a motion for approval of the class action
settlement and certification of a settlement class, from July 14th,
as set by the Court's Order of June 14th, to August 4th.
The Defendant joins as to the Plaintiffs' request for an extension
of the deadline.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 12, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dxt7Uo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica Ranucci, Esq.
NYLAG
100 Pearl Street, 19th Floor,
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 613-5000
Facsimile: (212) 750-0820
E-mail: nylag.org
LABOR SOURCE: Speight Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SPEIGHT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LABOR SOURCE, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00112-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Louise W. Flanagan entered an order granting in part and
denying in part plaintiff's motion to amend.
-- The Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint within
seven days of entry of the order.
-- The Defendant is directed to file an answer or other
responsive
pleading within 21 days after the amended complaint is filed.
-- Additionally, where the amendment of the complaint likely will
alter some of the parties’ arguments in support of or
opposition
to class certification, the motion for class certification, is
terminated as moot.
-- Following defendant's filing of an answer or other responsive
pleading, the court will enter an order directing the parties
to
confer and propose deadlines for briefing on class
certification.
The Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, a staffing agency,
commenced this action on August 12, 2021, asserting claims on
behalf of himself and an almost nationwide collective of
defendant's current and former employees under the FLSA; as well as
claims on behalf of himself and a statewide class of defendant's
current and former employees under the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act.
Labor Source provides individuals and crews to contractors and
subcontractors.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/453bZ4Z at no extra charge.[CC]
LITTLE SCHOLARS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Villa Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Villa, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Little Scholars
Childcare LLC, Kidz Town of Dutchess Corporation, and Sidiq Mohamed
Alrobeyee, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05772 (S.D.N.Y., July 6,
2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law and their
supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.
Plaintiff Villa was employed as a teacher's assistant at
Defendants' daycares known as "Kidz Town of Dutchess" and "Little
Scholars Child Care" located at 1299 US-9 Wappingers Falls, NY,
from on or around May 2022 to, through and including, November
2022. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was required to work in
excess of 40 hours per week, but she never received an overtime
premium of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for those
hours. Among things, she was also denied with her statutory right
to receive true and accurate information about the nature of her
employment and related compensation policies because of the
Defendants' failure to provide accurate wage notices and accurate
wage statements, says the suit.
Moreover, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and the NYLL's Wage
Theft Prevention Act.
Based in New York, Little Scholars Childcare LLC is a domestic
limited liability company that owns and operates daycares. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
META PLATFORMS: July 25, 2024 Filing for Class Cert Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re Meta Pixel Tax
Filing Cases, Case No. 3:22-cv-07557-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
submit a stipulation and proposed order regarding the briefing
schedules for Meta's anticipated Motion to Dismiss and the
Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion for Class Certification:
Event Deadline
Opening Motion to Dismiss Due July 27, 2023
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Due Sept. 12, 2023
Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Due Oct. 13, 2023
Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Oct. 27, 2023
Motion for Class Certification and July 25, 2024
Class Expert Reports Due
Opposition to Class Certification Sept. 30, 2024
and Class Expert Reports Due
Class Certification Reply and Class Oct. 30, 2024
Expert Reply Reports Due
Hearing on Class Certification Nov. 15, 2024
The Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
May 15, 2023.
In its February 9, 2023 Order, the Court set a briefing schedule
for Meta's Motion to Dismiss, under which order Meta's Motion to
Dismiss is due by July 14, 2023, the opposition is due by August
28, 2023, and the reply is due by September 27, 2023.
On June 30, 2023, following the Initial Case Management Conference
in this action, the Court set certain deadlines and "instructed the
parties to meet and confer to submit a jointly agreed upon
schedule" for the briefing regarding Meta's anticipated Motion to
Dismiss and the Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion for Class
Certification.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 13, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OwrI6U at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Neal Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Marshal J. Hoda, Esq.
THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC
12333 Sowden Road, Suite B
Houston, TX 77080
Telephone: (832) 848-0036
E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com
- and -
Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC
917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 331-5254
E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (800) 551-8649
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
Darcy C. Harris, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq.
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
Andrew M. Kasabian, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 351-4000
Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com
dharris@gibsondunn.com
emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
abarrera@gibsondunn.com
akasabian@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
Caroline A. Lebel, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
clebel@cooley.com
NEIL BROZEN: Arbitration Procedure's Waiver Unenforceable, Ct. Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON COLEMAN and JESSICA
CASEY on behalf of the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly
situated, v. NEIL M. BROZEN, ROBERT PETERSON, JR., VASILIA
PETERSON, MIKE PAXTON NICK BOURAS, STERLING INVESTMENT PARTNERS
III, L.P., NICOLE PETERSON 2012 IRREVOCABLE TRUST, and BROOKE
PETERSON 2012 IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Case No. 3:20-cv-01358-E (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ada Brown entered an order concluding that
the Arbitration Procedure's class action Waiver is unenforceable
because it prospectively waives the Plaintiffs' statutory right to
seek Plan-wide relief under Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) sections 502(a)(2) and 409(a).
Because the Class Action Waiver is not severable from the
Arbitration Procedure, the Court must conclude the entire
Arbitration Procedure is unenforceable. As such, the Court denies
the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.
The Court reiterates that the problem with the Class Action Waiver
is not that it prohibits class arbitration of the Plaintiffs'
statutory claims under ERISA. Instead, the problem is that the
Class Action Waiver prohibits statutory remedies that are
specifically authorized under ERISA.
The Court's decision "turns on the impermissible relief, and not
the chosen vehicle, for ERISA claims under the plan here." The
Supreme Court has made clear that a "prospective waiver of a
party's right to pursue statutory remedies” in arbitration are
unenforceable, on public policy grounds.
The case arises from disputes involving an employee stock ownership
plan. The Plaintiffs Jason Coleman and Jessica Casey are former
participants in the RVNB Holdings Employee Stock Ownership Plan and
initiated this litigation individually and on behalf of a class
alleging various violations of the ERISA. The factual background
detailed below is taken from the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of All My Sons, which was
founded in 1993 by the Defendant Robert Peterson, Jr. and his wife
the Defendant Vasilia Peterson.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q4eJjA at no extra charge.[CC]
PARAMED INC: Settles Class Suit Over Health Standards for $195,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that a proposed Settlement has
been reached in the class action lawsuit Kellesis v ParaMed Inc.
The lawsuit alleges that ParaMed Inc. ("ParaMed") (the Defendant)
failed to follow public health standards in the sterilization of
medical instruments used at ParaMed's wound-care clinics, exposing
the Plaintiff and Class Members to the risk of contracting serious
communicable diseases, including hepatitis C, hepatitis B, and HIV.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever, and the Court did
not decide who was right. The Parties have instead decided to
settle the lawsuit.
If approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the proposed
Settlement will resolve the claims of all persons who (1) received
wound care involving the use of medical instruments at ParaMed's
clinics located at 124 Barker Street, 1340 Huron Street, and 148
Fullarton Street, Suite 200 in London, Ontario between January 1,
2008 and July 27, 2018, (2) were contacted by ParaMed and advised
that they may have been exposed to infection and should be tested
for hepatitis C, hepatitis B, and HIV, and (3) tested positive for
hepatitis C, hepatitis B, or HIV, other than those with Excluded
Claims.
Under the proposed Settlement, ParaMed will pay $195,000.00 to
settle the lawsuit with eligible Settlement Class Members receiving
up to $25,000 for an HIV Claim, up to $15,000 for a Hepatitis B
Claim, and/or up to $10,000 for a Hepatitis C Claim, provided that
they submit a valid and timely Claim.
The proposed Settlement must be approved by the Court before it
becomes effective. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (London
Courthouse) will hold a Settlement Approval Hearing on July 21,
2023, September 29, 2023 at 2:30pm EST virtually over Zoom to
consider whether or not to approve the proposed Settlement. If the
proposed Settlement is approved by the Court, Settlement Class
Members can participate in the Settlement by submitting a Claim for
compensation. If Settlement Class Members wish to participate, they
are not required to do anything until after the Settlement is
approved. Settlement Class Members can object to the proposed
Settlement and attend the Settlement Approval Hearing to present
that objection. If they wish to object to the proposed Settlement,
they must submit a signed and completed Objection Form to the
Claims Administrator on or before September 5, 2023.
McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP of London, Ontario is Class Counsel,
representing the Plaintiff and Settlement Class.
Further information and documents related to this class action,
including the long-form Notice of Settlement Approval Hearing,
Settlement Agreement, and Objection Form, are available on Class
Counsel's website:
https://www.mckenzielake.com/paramed-class-action/. If the Court
approves the proposed Settlement, a Notice of Settlement Approval
that includes information on how to make a Claim for compensation
will be posted to Class Counsel's website.
PARAMED CLASS ACTION: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING
Please read this Notice carefully - your legal rights may be
affected.
A proposed Settlement has been reached in a certified class action
lawsuit against ParaMed Inc. ("ParaMed"): Kellesis v ParaMed Inc.,
Ontario Superior Court of Justice Court File No. 1862/18. The
lawsuit alleges that ParaMed failed to follow public health
standards in the sterilization of medical instruments used at
ParaMed's wound-care clinics, exposing the Plaintiff and Class
Members to the risk of contracting serious communicable diseases,
including hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV. ParaMed denies any
liability whatsoever, and the Court did not decide who was right.
The Parties have instead decided to settle the lawsuit.
Who are Settlement Class Members in the Proposed Settlement?
All persons who received wound care involving the use of medical
instruments at ParaMed's clinics located at 124 Barker Street, 1340
Huron Street, and 148 Fullarton Street, Suite 200 in London,
Ontario between January 1, 2008 and July 27, 2018 and who were
contacted by ParaMed and advised that they may have been exposed to
infection and should be tested for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and
HIV, and who tested positive for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or HIV,
or where such person is deceased, the personal representative of
the estate of the deceased person
What benefits are available to eligible Settlement Class Members
under the Proposed Settlement?
ParaMed has agreed to provide a settlement fund of $195,000.00 to
pay successful Settlement Class Member claims as well as certain
fees and expenses, including Class Counsel Fees in an amount to be
approved by the Court.
Depending on the infection(s) suffered, eligible Settlement Class
Members may make one or more of three categories of Claims: a
Hepatitis B Claim ($15,000), a Hepatitis C Claim ($10,000), or an
HIV Claim ($25,000). The quantum of the payments to Claimants with
Approved Claims will be reduced pro rata if the Settlement Fund is
insufficient to pay all of the Approved Claims. Contact McKenzie
Lake Lawyers LLP ("Class Counsel") for more information about
eligibility and supporting evidence for making a Claim.
APPROVAL HEARING: The proposed Settlement must be approved by the
Court before it becomes effective. The Court will decide whether or
not to approve the Settlement on September 29, 2023 at 2:30 pm EST
virtually over Zoom at the London Courthouse, 80 Dundas Street,
London, ON N6A 6A3. Check Class Counsel's website (below)
regularly after that date to see if the Settlement has been
approved. You can also register with Class Counsel to be notified
by email if the Settlement is approved.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS:
If the Court approves the Settlement, you can participate by
submitting a Claim for compensation. If you wish to participate,
you are not required to do anything until after the Settlement is
approved.
You can object to the proposed Settlement and attend the Approval
Hearing to present that objection. If you wish to object, you must
submit a signed and completed Objection Form to the Claims
Administrator on or before September 5, 2023. A copy of the
Objection Form can be obtained from Class Counsel's website below
or by reaching out to Class Counsel at the telephone number or
email address below.
To obtain more information, visit Class Counsel online at
https://www.mckenzielake.com/paramed-class-action/, email
christina.noble@mckenzielake.com or call 1-844-672-5666. [GN]
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Dismissal Bid of Salazar Class Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon L. Spurlock and Jennifer A. Riley in Duane Morris LLP of
Lexology report that on July 18, 2023, in Salazar v. Paramount
Global d/b/a 247Sports, No. 3:22-CV-00756 (M.D. Tenn. July 18,
2023), Judge Eli Richardson of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee dismissed a class action lawsuit
against Paramount Global because the Plaintiff failed to state a
claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") where
Plaintiff's allegation that his subscription to an online
newsletter made him a "subscriber" under the statute was
insufficient because he did not allege that he accessed audio
visual content through the newsletter. The VPPA is a law from
1980's stemming from the failed Supreme Court nomination of Robert
Bork, which involved his video rental history being published
during the nomination process. In the ensuing decades, companies
are seeing an increase in class action lawsuits under the VPPA and
other consumer privacy statutes where plaintiffs seek to levy heavy
penalties against businesses with an online presence. This ruling
illustrates that some federal courts will closely examine such
statutes to ensure that a plaintiff adequately states a claim based
on the underlying statutory definitions before allowing a class
action to proceed.
Case Background
Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendant Paramount
Global d/b/a 247Sports alleging a violation of the VPPA. According
to Defendant, 247Sports.com is an industry leader in content for
college sports, delivering team-specific news through online news
feeds, social platforms, daily newsletters, podcasts, text alerts
and mobile apps. Plaintiff alleged that Paramount installed a
Facebook tracking pixel, which allows Facebook to collect the data
on digital subscribers to 247Sports.com who also have a Facebook
account. So if a digital subscriber of 247Sports.com is logged-in
to his or her Facebook account while watching video content on
247Sports.com, then 247Sports.com sends to Facebook (via the
Facebook pixel) the video content name, its URL, and, most notably,
the digital subscriber's Facebook ID. Id. at 4. Plaintiff claimed
that Paramount violated the VPPA when it installed the Facebook
pixel, which caused the disclosure to Facebook of Plaintiff's
personally identifying information. Paramount moved to dismiss for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claims for relief
under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Court's Decision That Plaintiff Had Standing Under The VPPA
First, Paramount argued that Plaintiff did not have standing
because Plaintiff failed to adequately allege either a concrete
injury in fact or the traceability of the injury to Paramount's
conduct, because the alleged disclosure of Plaintiff's information
to Facebook did not constitute a concrete injury. Rejecting
Paramount's standing argument, the Court noted that the VPPA
created a "right to privacy of one's video-watching history, the
deprivation of which – through wrongful disclosure, or statutory
violation alone – constitutes an injury sufficient to confer
Article III standing." In other words, the VPPA created a statutory
right to have personally identifiable information remain private by
prohibiting disclosure to third parties. Thus, the Court ruled that
Plaintiff's allegation that his personally identifiable information
was transmitted to Facebook in violation of the VPPA identified a
concrete harm for standing purposes.
Plaintiff Failed To State A Claim Under The VPPA
Paramount also asserted that Plaintiff had no claim under the VPPA
because he was not a "consumer," meaning "any renter, purchaser, or
subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service
provider." Because Plaintiff was not a "consumer" within the
meaning of the VPPA, Paramount argued he was not a "subscriber of
goods or services from a video tape service provider," and
Plaintiff did not state a claim under the VPPA because the statute
only protects individuals who are "consumers" under the statute.
The Court noted that although the VPPA does not define
"subscriber," the dictionary definition indicates that "subscriber"
is a person who "imparts money and/or personal information in order
to receive a future and recurrent benefit." Further interpreting
the statute, the Court reasoned that a consumer is only a
"subscriber" under the statute when he or she subscribes to audio
visual materials. Completing the analysis, the Court reasoned that
under the VPPA, because Plaintiff's subscription to the newsletter
was not sufficient to establish that the he had subscribed to audio
visual materials, Plaintiff's position was unavailing in claiming
that his subscription to the newsletter renders him a
"subscriber."
The Court, therefore, dismissed Plaintiff's VPPA class action
lawsuit because Plaintiff failed to allege that he actually
accessed audio visual content, which necessarily meant that
Plaintiff was not a subscriber under the VPPA.
Implications For Businesses
This past year has seen an uptick in VPPA class action filings
against businesses that operate websites offering online videos and
using third-party tracking tools. These lawsuits represent an
ongoing pattern of increased consumer privacy class litigation
throughout the country exposing companies to significant risk
across a wide array of industries. Corporate counsel should note
this ruling is a positive indication that some courts will closely
examine the plain language and legislative intent of a privacy
statute to ensure that a plaintiff actually states a viable claim
before allowing class litigation to proceed. [GN]
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Nolen Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALICIA NOLEN, Plaintiff v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-09203-EMC, Docket No. 180 (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies PeopleConnect's motion to dismiss.
The Defendant moves for an order dismissing the Plaintiff's claims.
The Plaintiff filed a class action suit against the Defendant for
(1) violating California's Right of Publicity Statute, California
Civil Code Section 3344; (2) violating California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 (the unlawful prong); and (3) unjust enrichment under
California common law. These claims stem from the Defendant's
non-consensual use of the Plaintiff's likeness for the purpose of
advertising. The Defendant, however, contends that the Plaintiff
did not plead an actionable claim because she did not properly
allege that Defendant used her image.
PeopleConnect is a company that collects yearbooks, scans the
yearbooks, and extracts information from the yearbooks (such as
names, photographs, schools attended, and so forth) to be put into
a database. It aggregates the extracted information into digital
records associated with specific individuals, and then the digital
records are exploited commercially -- to promote and sell
PeopleConnect's products—but without the individuals' consent.
PeopleConnect sells products through its website (Classmates.com).
The products sold on the website are (1) reprinted yearbooks and
(2) a subscription membership.
This motion involves the Second Amended Complaint in the action.
The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint after the Court
dismissed their former intrusion upon seclusion claim, UCL (unfair
prong) claim, and all claims as they related to the sales of
reprinted yearbooks. They, correctly anticipating that their claims
were time-barred, filed the SAC to add two new named Plaintiffs:
Alexandra Overton and Alicia Nolen. Overton voluntarily dismissed
her claims, leaving only Nolen as named Plaintiff.
The Defendant's motion to dismiss focuses on a narrow issue:
whether Nolen adequately alleged that the Defendant used her image
for the purpose of advertising. The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff's theory of liability fails because it does not require
that her name or photographs have ever been displayed in what the
Second Amended Complaint calls an 'advertising technique.' Simply
put, it argues that their use of the Plaintiff's image does not
constitute a use for the purpose of advertising under Section 3344
until her image is visually displayed (e.g., through pixels on a
user's computer monitor) in connection with an advertisement
following a user's search.
Although the Defendant states otherwise, they are arguing for a de
facto requirement of third-party viewership for certain Section
3344 claims -- essentially, even if users could interact with the
Plaintiff's images as part of an advertising flow, the Plaintiff's
claims fail because she never alleges that any user ever actually
viewed them in this way, and thus they were not visually used in a
commercial advertisement.
Judge Chen disagrees: The Defendant commercially used the
Plaintiff's image the moment the image became a publicly accessible
part of its advertising flow. To hold otherwise would impose a
visual display requirement that is at odds with the single
publication rule of claim accrual and that has no basis in the text
or purpose of Section 3344. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff's image
needed to have been visually displayed in the Defendant's
advertising flow following a user's search for it to have been used
for a commercial purpose, the Plaintiff's claims would still
survive since she adequately alleged such a display.
Drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff, Judge Chen concludes that the SAC adequately alleged
that third parties searched for Nolen's image and then viewed it in
connection with the Defendant's advertisements for Classmates.com.
The Plaintiff therefore alleged third-party viewership of her image
and its visual display in connection with the Defendant's
solicitations. While such a pleading is unnecessary in the Court's
view, it is sufficient. The Plaintiff only needed to plead that the
Defendant published her image in connection with their advertising
flow, which she did. She, thus, adequately pled her claim.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chen denies the Defendant's motion
to dismiss. His order disposes of Docket No. 180.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 30, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/24fcnpwk from Leagle.com.
PNC BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Release of Security Interests
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hearst Illinois of The Telegraph reports that a class action
lawsuit that alleges PNC Bank fails to properly deliver release of
security interests and/or certificates of titles to customers who
have paid off their loans has been filed by plaintiffs represented
by two Metro East law firms.
According to a press release from TorHoerman Law LLC, of
Edwardsville, and Walton Telken LLC, of St. Louis and Edwardsville,
the complaint alleges that after customers paid off their car
loans, PNC did not provide the customer with a release of lien or
their car title.
Instead, the lawsuit alleges, PNC lost the title and claimed the
documents were "lost in the mail."
The suit further alleges that PNC then required the customer to pay
a fee to a third-party to obtain a release of lien. The customer
then had to present their release of lien to their local DMV for a
replacement title, which incurred an additional cost, the press
release on the lawsuit stated.
Specifically, the media release stated, defendant PNC Bank is being
sued for breach of contract, violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code
and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act.
"Paying off your car loan should be a moment of accomplishment and
relief for someone; not a pathway to manipulation and frustration,"
said Tyler Schneider, a partner at TorHoerman Law.
According to the complaint, PNC is statutorily and contractually
required to provide the release of security interest and/or
certificate of title for free after borrowers pay off their vehicle
loans.
"This should not be a complicated process. When someone pays off
the loan on their vehicle, they should get title to the car.
Unfortunately, for our client, it was anything but," said Troy
Walton, managing partner of Walton Telken.
The class action complaint was filed in the US District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois on July 7, according to the press
release.
Plaintiffs are represented by Tyler Schneider and Kenneth Brennan
of TorHoerman Law LLC and co-counsel Troy Walton and Michael Marker
of Walton Telken LLC. [GN]
PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARY: Court Stays Class Certification Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MacTaggert, Scott v.
Professional Fiduciary Services LLC et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00371
(W.D. Wisc.), the Court entered an order granting joint motion to
stay and reset briefing on class certification and appointment of
class counsel.
-- The motion to certify a class must be filed within six weeks
after the court rules on the pending dispositive motions. The
rest of the schedule remains unchanged.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) involving recovery of benefits to employee.
RITE AID: August 14 Date Deadline to File Class Status Bid Remains
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYON STAFFORD and
ELIZABETH DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-01340-TWR-AHG
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered an order
following discovery Conferences:
-- The parties' deadline to raise any outstanding issues with
the
Court regarding discovery necessary to complete the briefing
on
the class certification is July 14, 2023.
-- The parties must submit a Joint Status Report via email to
efile_Goddard@casd.uscourts.gov, outlining any outstanding
discovery issues that may impede class certification
briefing.
-- After reviewing the parties' Joint Status Report, if
necessary,
the Court will set a deadline for the parties to pursue
motion
practice in the appropriate jurisdiction(s) on any
outstanding
issues regarding third-party discovery.
-- The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class
certification remains as previously set on August 14, 2023.
Rite Aid is an American drugstore chain based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qeg2ae at no extra charge.[CC]
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Fact Discovery Date Extended to Sept. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COOPER MOORE and ANDREW
GILLETTE, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 2:21-cv-01571-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Barbara J. Rothstein entered an order granting Parties stipulated
motion and extending deadlines as follows:
Event Current Requested
Date Date
The Plaintiffs' expert report(s) Aug. 21, 2023 Aug. 28,
2023
served on defendant
Deadline for class July 28, 2023 Sept. 15,
2023
certification fact discovery
The Defendant’s expert report(s) Sept. 25, 2023 Oct. 2,
2023
served on plaintiffs
The Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Nov. 7, 2023 Nov. 14,
2023
report(s) served on the Defendant
Deadline for the parties to n/a Oct. 31,
2023
engage in private mediation
Deadline to complete class Nov. 21, 2023 Dec. 1,
2023
certification expert discovery
Deadline for the Plaintiffs to Jan. 10, 2024 No change
file motion for class
certification
Deadline for the Defendant's Feb. 7, 2024 No change
class certification response
Deadline for the Plaintiffs' Feb. 28, 2024 No change
class certification reply
Fact discovery cut off Sept. 23, 2024 No change
Robinhood Financial is a stock brokerage firm, which provides
brokerage clearing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rHAYfA at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
Mark Desanto, Esq.
Zachary Vaughan, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
401 B Street, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 489-0300
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: srios@bm.net
mdrake@bm.net
mdesanto@bm.net
zvaughan@bm.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric A. Franz, Esq.
Kenneth E. Payson, Esq.
Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq.
Theo A. Lesczynski, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com
laurenrainwater@dwt.com
ericfranz@dwt.com
theolesczynski@dwt.com
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Over Huawei Transactions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Alcorn of Tom's Hardware reports that hard disk drive maker
Seagate was recently slapped with a $300 million fine by the U.S.
Department of Commerce for violating US sanctions that applied
export controls on products sold to Huawei, but that may be just
the tip of the iceberg. Over the course of the last two weeks, a
slew of law firms had filed class action suits against Seagate on
behalf of shareholders who allege they were misled about the
company selling millions of hard drives to the banned Huawei.
Those sales totaled $1.1 billion in revenue, of which Seagate
profited an estimated $150 million. After paying $300 million for
that transgression, the toll will become higher as the class action
proceeds, alleging that Seagate made materially false and/or
misleading statements to its shareholders about its business
dealings with the Chinese tech company.
The U.S. government banned sales of a broad class of devices to
Huawei back in 2019. Seagate's competitors, Western Digital and
Toshiba, immediately ceased providing hard drives to Huawei.
However, Seagate contended that its HDD sales were legal, even
though Western Digital insisted the devices fell under the umbrella
of US sanctions.
Seagate continued selling 7.4 million drives to Huawei from August
2020 to September 2021, even inking a rather unneeded deal to
become Huawei's 'sole supplier (no one else would sell to Huawei
anyway). The issue eventually caught the attention of a U.S.
Senator who called for an investigation. That finally lead to the
$300 million fine that was levied against Seagate by the US
Department of Commerce (payable in $15 million increments every
quarter for five years).
These sorts of fines aren't good for the bottom line or for
shareholder value. As such, multiple law firms are now soliciting
lead plaintiffs for a class action lawsuit that has been filed
against Seagate. We've seen calls for lead plaintiffs from 14 law
firms over the last two weeks, so there's no shortage of legal
representatives for those impacted.
To qualify, litigants will have to have experienced a loss on
Seagate stock that was purchased between September 15, 2020, and
October 25, 2022. The court will select a lead plaintiff on
September 8, 2023, and the class action lawsuit will then proceed
against Seagate. The lawsuit alleges that Seagate issued false
and/or misleading statements about:
The nature and magnitude of Seagate's HDD sales to Huawei,
including that Seagate experienced a significant acceleration in
sales to Huawei immediately after the BIS rules went into effect
and Seagate's competitors stopped selling to Huawei; and
That the underlying details of Seagate's HDD manufacturing process,
including the use of covered U.S. software and technology in
"essential 'production'" processes, rendered its sales to Huawei in
violation of the BIS export rules.
As a result, Seagate was in blatant violation of the BIS export
rules which resulted in an ongoing investigation by the U.S.
Department of Commerce and exposed Seagate to hundreds of millions
of dollars in fines and penalties.
As a result, Defendants' positive statements about the company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The lawsuit comes amidst what could be easily defined as a
challenging time for Seagate, as the industry-wide slump has led
the company to recently announce sweeping layoffs. We've reached
out to Seagate for comment and will update as necessary. [GN]
TAKEDA PHARMA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 22, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC, et al.,
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass., Filed June 25, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting motion for
modification:
-- While the court does not find a four-month extension modest,
it
nonetheless will allow the motion given the complexity of the
case and the hurdles the parties have faced during discovery.
-- All fact discovery must be completed no later than Dec. 15,
2023.
-- The Plaintiffs' class certification motion is due Jan. 22,
2024,
with oppositions due Feb. 20, 2024.
-- Reply, if any, by leave of court only. The Plaintiff shall
designate expert(s) and serve Rule 26(a)(2) reports no later
than
Feb. 16, 2024.
-- The Defendants expert witness(es) will be designated and Rule
26(a)(2) reports filed no later than March 20, 2024.
-- Expert discovery must be completed by April 19, 2024.
-- If dispositive motions are appropriate, they are due by May
21,
2024, with oppositions to dispositive motions due June 11,
2024.
-- Reply, if any, by leave of court.
The suit states antitrust litigation.
Takeda Pharmaceutical engages in the research and development,
manufacture, import and export sale, and marketing of
pharmaceutical drugs.[CC]
TEXAS HEALTH: Court Extends Time to File Response to Notice Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
To potential collective action plaintiffs and certify class In the
class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN LANGHAM, V. TEXAS HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, Case No. 6:22-cv-00057-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle entered an order granting second
unopposed motion to extend time to file the Defendant's response to
plaintiff's motion to authorize notice.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y2dIVD at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Carrington Until August 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHENEEQUA CARRINGTON, v.
TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., and TMX FINANCE LLC, Case No.
CV423-121 (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an
order terminating as moot all stay and extension requests.
The Plaintiffs in this case and several other related cases brought
actions against entities associated with the Defendant TMX alleging
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' personal
identifiable information. See, e.g., Kolstedt v. TMX Fin. Corp.
Servs., Inc., Case No. CV423-076 (S.D. Ga., March 31, 2023).
The parties in these cases have filed requests for extensions of
deadlines, requests to stay deadlines, and motions to consolidate
the cases.
The District Judge set a status conference for July 25, 2023, in
all of the cases to address the Plaintiff's consolidation request
in Kolstedt.
Instead of addressing each stay and extension request individually
before the District Judge's status conference, the Court stays all
deadlines in the cases until August 8, 2023.
The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions except the
following motions:
-- Kolstedt, Case CV423-076: Docs. 16, 25 & 33.
-- Trottier v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-083 (S.D. Ga.
April 5, 2023): Doc. 16
-- Johnson et al v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-096 (S.D.
Ga.
Apr. 12, 2023): Doc. 5
TMX Finance is the parent company to the brands TitleMax,
TitleBucks, EquityAuto Loan, and InstaLoan. The company holds more
than 900 stores in over fourteen states including Alabama, Arizona,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin, and
an online presence in Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rGIyas at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Domino Until August 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMMY DOMINO, v. TMX
FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. CV423-080 (S.D. Ga.), he
Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an order terminating as moot
all stay and extension requests.
The Plaintiffs in this case and several other related cases brought
actions against entities associated with the Defendant TMX alleging
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' personal
identifiable information. See, e.g., Kolstedt v. TMX Fin. Corp.
Servs., Inc., Case No. CV423-076 (S.D. Ga., March 31, 2023).
The parties in these cases have filed requests for extensions of
deadlines, requests to stay deadlines, and motions to consolidate
the cases.
The District Judge set a status conference for July 25, 2023, in
all of the cases to address the Plaintiff's consolidation request
in Kolstedt.
Instead of addressing each stay and extension request individually
before the District Judge's status conference, the Court stays all
deadlines in the cases until August 8, 2023.
The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions except the
following motions:
-- Kolstedt, Case CV423-076: Docs. 16, 25 & 33.
-- Trottier v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-083 (S.D. Ga.
April 5, 2023): Doc. 16
-- Johnson et al v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-096 (S.D.
Ga.
Apr. 12, 2023): Doc. 5
TMX Finance is the parent company to the brands TitleMax,
TitleBucks, EquityAuto Loan, and InstaLoan. The company holds more
than 900 stores in over fourteen states including Alabama, Arizona,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin, and
an online presence in Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pPGFaY at no extra
charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Eslinger Until August 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATSIE ESLINGER, v. TMX
FINANCE LLC, and TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
CV423-089 (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an
order terminating as moot all stay and extension requests.
The Plaintiffs in this case and several other related cases brought
actions against entities associated with the Defendant TMX alleging
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' personal
identifiable information. See, e.g., Kolstedt v. TMX Fin. Corp.
Servs., Inc., Case No. CV423-076 (S.D. Ga., March 31, 2023).
The parties in these cases have filed requests for extensions of
deadlines, requests to stay deadlines, and motions to consolidate
the cases.
The District Judge set a status conference for July 25, 2023, in
all of the cases to address the Plaintiff's consolidation request
in Kolstedt.
Instead of addressing each stay and extension request individually
before the District Judge's status conference, the Court stays all
deadlines in the cases until August 8, 2023.
The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions except the
following motions:
-- Kolstedt, Case CV423-076: Docs. 16, 25 & 33.
-- Trottier v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-083 (S.D. Ga.
April 5, 2023): Doc. 16
-- Johnson et al v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-096 (S.D.
Ga.
Apr. 12, 2023): Doc. 5
TMX Finance is the parent company to the brands TitleMax,
TitleBucks, EquityAuto Loan, and InstaLoan. The company holds more
than 900 stores in over fourteen states including Alabama, Arizona,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin, and
an online presence in Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O0XXtv at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Johnson Until August 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN JOHNSON, et al., v.
TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. CV423-096 (S.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an order
terminating as moot all stay and extension requests.
The Plaintiffs in this case and several other related cases brought
actions against entities associated with the Defendant TMX alleging
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' personal
identifiable information. See, e.g., Kolstedt v. TMX Fin. Corp.
Servs., Inc., Case No. CV423-076 (S.D. Ga., March 31, 2023).
The parties in these cases have filed requests for extensions of
deadlines, requests to stay deadlines, and motions to consolidate
the cases.
The District Judge set a status conference for July 25, 2023, in
all of the cases to address the Plaintiff's consolidation request
in Kolstedt.
Instead of addressing each stay and extension request individually
before the District Judge's status conference, the Court stays all
deadlines in the cases until August 8, 2023.
The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions except
the following motions:
-- Kolstedt, Case CV423-076: Docs. 16, 25 & 33.
-- Trottier v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-083 (S.D. Ga.
April 5, 2023): Doc. 16
-- Johnson et al v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-096 (S.D.
Ga.
Apr. 12, 2023): Doc. 5
TMX Finance is the parent company to the brands TitleMax,
TitleBucks, EquityAuto Loan, and InstaLoan. The company holds more
than 900 stores in over fourteen states including Alabama, Arizona,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin, and
an online presence in Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KaDwJI at no extra charge.[CC]
TUFTS UNIVERSITY: Schmidhauser Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT SCHMIDHAUSER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TUFTS
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-11940-RWZ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order continuing the hearing on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification based on the following
recitals:
-- The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification on
March
13, 2023.
-- The Defendant filed its Opposition to the Motion for Class
Certification on April 26, 2023.
-- The Plaintiff filed his Reply Brief in Support of his Motion
for
Class Certification on May 31, 2023.
-- On June 20, 2023, the Hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class
Certification was set for July 26, 2023.
-- On June 29th, 2023, the Parties entered a Stipulation to
Extend
the Date for the Hearing to August 1st, 2023.
-- On July 10, 2023, the Court granted the Stipulation and set
the
Hearing for August 1, 2023, at 2:00 PM, and this Order
represents
the only previous adjustment to the Hearing date since
briefing
on the Motion for Class Certification was completed.
Tufts University is a private research university located in the
Greater Boston area.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O2Z63S at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1 600 Market St 2510,
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
- and -
Yvette Golan, Esq.
THE GOLAN FIRM LLP
529 14th St NW Ste 914.
Washington, DC 20045-1901
TWITTER INC: Faces Woodfield $500M Class Suit Over Severance Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf of Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Chris
Woodfield filed a class action lawsuit against Twitter Inc., X
Corp., X Holdings I, X Holding Corp. and Elon Musk claiming the
companies and CEO failed to pay severance to former employees
despite promising to do so and later not following a dispute
resolution agreement with the former employees.
Twitter laid off, fired or engineered the resignations of more than
5,000 employees within less than two months of Musk taking over and
finangled those resignations so the company was not obligated to
pay what was estimated to be nine figures' worth of severance, the
class action claims.
Twitter laid off Woodfield on Jan. 4, after the merger closed, and
has not paid a severance he claims the company repeatedly promised
from the date of his employment to a company FAQ in April 2022 to a
repeated message in October 2022 as the acquisition was about to
close.
"Those communications were made at a time of significant
uncertainty and employee concern -- among other things, Musk and
Twitter were litigating over whether Musk could escape his
agreement to purchase Twitter -- and, on information and belief,
were made in order to assuage that concern and convince Twitter
employees to stay at Twitter through the merger," the class action
says.
Twitter employees also denied arbitration promised in signed
agreements, class action alleges
Twitter employees were required to sign a dispute resolution
agreement upon hiring that stated they would be eligible for
arbitration if a dispute arose that could not be resolved.
But employees have been denied that arbitration, according to the
Twitter severance class action. The class is asking for
compensatory damages, including severance with interest, along with
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.
Twitter is no stranger to employment lawsuits. Earlier this month,
it was hit with a class action lawsuit from former employees who
were laid off, terminated or constructively discharged over delayed
arbitration hearings.
The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph L. Christensen of
Christenson and Dougherty LLP and Akiva Cohen, Lane Haygood, Dylan
M. Schmeyer and Michael D. Dunford of Kamerman, Uncyk, Soniker and
Klein, PC.
The Twitter severance class action lawsuit is Woodfield, et al. v.
Twitter Inc., et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-00780-UNA, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware. [GN]
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Moves to Dismiss Property Owners Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Sloan of KMBC News reports that the company Jackson County,
Missouri hired to do their property assessments has filed a motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed earlier this summer by
Jackson County property owners.
Tyler Technologies' attorney made the request on July 20, 2023,
online court records show.
yler was one of several defendants named in a lawsuit filed by on
June 20.
The lawsuit accuses Tyler and other defendants, including Jackson
County, Missouri, of taking actions that led to "illegal and
unlawful increases in the assessed value of real property through
Jackson County, thereby threatening class members with imminent
harm in the form of unlawful and illegal tax increases."
It was filed June 20 in court.
A court hearing was set for Judge David Chamberlain's court room on
Aug. 25. [GN]
VICTORIA: Justification Continues in Public Housing Suit Amid Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Woods of Yahoo! News reports that the Victorian government
continues to justify throwing thousands of public housing tower
residents into a sudden COVID-19 lockdown but has agreed to pay
each adult $2200.
A class action was brought against the state in 2021, after about
1800 adults and 751 children were locked inside nine public housing
towers in North Melbourne and Flemington from July 4 to July 18,
2020.
Residents in the towers, who were not given any notice or warning
before being locked inside their homes for two weeks, claimed they
were falsely imprisoned by the government and were threatened with
physical harm if they tried to leave.
Earlier this year, the state government offered to settle with the
group for $5 million.
The money will be distributed among those in the class action, and
the government's lawyers told the Supreme Court on July 24, 2023
each adult will receive $2200 and each child $1130.
However, government barrister Georgina Costello KC said the
settlement did not mean the state would admit to any fault.
"The towers lockdown was an emergency response that was lawful,
necessary and proportionate . . . for the purpose of protecting the
lives of tower residents," she told the court.
She argued the government's detention of those inside the towers
complied with the relevant legislation.
"The deprivation of liberty was reasonable and demonstrably
justifiable," Ms Costello said.
She said residents were supported during the lockdown as they were
offered welfare, food and medical services, and the rest of the
state was also locked down between eight and 32 hours later.
"It's a realistic settlement in light of the confinement in their
homes, the welfare support they received and the fact that there
were significant restrictions on liberty in Victoria at that time,"
she said.
Lead plaintiff Idris Hassan said the lockdown had an "indelible
psychological impact" on him and compared it to living in Somalia
during the civil war.
"During the experience of the lockdown he saw himself as a child in
the ravages of a war zone," his barrister Juliet Lucy said.
Mr Hassan's mother Hawa Warsame, who is also a lead plaintiff, said
she hoped settling the case would alleviate some of the trauma she
has experienced and allow her to move forward.
Both lead plaintiffs are asking for the court to award them a
higher amount than the rest of the group, $40,000 each.
This is due to sacrificing valuable time and for expenses, stress
and anxiety from taking a central role in the action, Dr Lucy
said.
The mother and son have also been ostracised from the Somalian
community because they became lead plaintiffs, she said.
Ms Costello asked Justice John Dixon to award the plaintiffs
between $10,000 and $20,000 to ensure the money is fairly
distributed.
The class action also wants the government to foot their legal
bill, which Dr Lucy said was now more than $650,000.
Justice Dixon will decide on the money distribution and has given
both parties 14 days to negotiate on legal costs.
A 2020 review by Ombudsman Deborah Glass found an apology was
warranted because the lockdown breached residents' human rights due
to the lack of notice given and because the timing of the lockdown
did not follow health advice. [GN]
WALMART INC: Ct. OK's 60-Day Settlements Talks in Arrison
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathy Arrison, et al., v.
Walmart Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00481-SMB (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order granting the
deadline to engage in good faith settlements talks to 60 days after
the Court rules on the motions for class certification and summary
judgment.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44CDTF0 at no extra charge.[CC]
WALT DISNEY: Nielsen Allowed Leave to File Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENALE NIELSEN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WALT
DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., Inc., a Florida Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-02055-DOC-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order allowing
certain documents in support of the Plaintiff's reply Memorandum in
support of motion for class certification.
The Court, having considered the Plaintiff's application For Leave
To File Certain Documents in support of the Plaintiff’s Reply
Memorandum In Support Of the Plaintiff's Motion For Class
Certification, and having found that compelling reasons exits to
seal the documents, hereby orders that the application is granted
in its entirety.
accordingly, the plaintiffs are hereby granted leave to file the
following documents under seal:
1. An unredacted version of the Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum In
Support Of the Plaintiff's Motion For Class Certification;
2. An unredacted version of the Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum In
Support Of the Plaintiff’s Motion For Class Certification
with
proposed redactions highlighted in yellow;
3. Exhibit 25 to the Supplemental Declaration of Nickolas J.
Hagman
In Support Of the Plaintiff’s Motion For Class
Certification;
4. Exhibit 26 to the Supplemental Declaration of Nickolas J.
Hagman
In Support Of the Plaintiff’s Motion For Class
Certification;
5. Exhibit 27 to the Supplemental Declaration of Nickolas J.
Hagman
In Support Of the Plaintiff’s Motion For Class
Certification;
6. Exhibit 28 to the Supplemental Declaration of Nickolas J.
Hagman
In Support Of the Plaintiff’s Motion For Class
Certification;
7. Exhibit 31 to the Supplemental Declaration of Nickolas J.
Hagman
In Support Of the Plaintiff’s Motion For Class
Certification;
Walt Disney was founded in 1964. The Company's line of business
includes the operating of amusement parks and kids parks.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43BH3aH at no extra charge.[CC]
WAYFINDER FAMILY: Faces Ratliff Suit Over Breach Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYNESHA RATLIFF, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees, Plaintiff, v. WAYFINDER FAMILY SERVICES, a California
Nonprofit Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV15669 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 7, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the
California Labor Code.
Plaintiff Ratliff was hired by Defendants with the job title of
Milieu Counselor on or about July 20, 2017. Ratliff and other
aggrieved employees, were regularly required to work off-the-clock,
and/or during their rest and/or meal periods. Among other things,
Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees were allegedly not paid with
proper overtime and minimum wages and were not provided with
itemized wage statements. Thus, this Private Attorney General
Action complaint seeks to recover statutory attorneys' fees and
costs and other further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Wayfinder Family Services is a California non-profit corporation
that provides services and temporary shelter for children, youth,
and adults. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Raffi Tapanian, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
raffi@hbklawyers.com
WINDOWS WE ARE: Fails to Timely Pay Proper Wages, Seminara Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Seminara, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff, v.
Windows We Are, Inc., John Turnbull, and Scott Turnbull,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05135 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2023), arises
out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law
and their supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations.
Plaintiff Seminara was employed as a shipping and receiving
associate at Defendants' window treatment company located in
Brooklyn, New York from on or around July 2022 to, through and
including June 2023. Allegedly, the Defendants failed pay Plaintiff
one and one-half times the regular rate at which Plaintiff was
employed for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Among other things, the Defendants failed to provide accurate wage
statements and to pay wages timely or on weekly basis as required
by NYLL, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in New York, Windows We Are, Inc. is a domestic
corporation that provides window treatment and installation
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
XEROX CORP: Bid to Amend Pleadings in Cole Suit Due June 7, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRY COLE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public, v. XEROX CORPORATION, a New York corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-03846-AB-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order approving
the parties' stipulation to set a schedule for the Plaintiff's
anticipated class certification motion.
The Court also sets June 7, 2024, as the last date for a motion to
amend pleadings/add party.
As all other proposed deadlines would be after the class
certification motion, the Court will defer setting a full schedule
until after the class certification motion is resolved. The parties
are ordered to file a proposed schedule within 14 days of the
issuance of the class certification order.
Xerox is an American corporation that sells print and digital
document products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qaotc3 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 ***